Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/wmcore.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This is a dockapp that shows the usage of each core in the system. The dockapp splits into two displays, the upper one showing the common usage of the system and the lower display showing one graph per each core. It detects the number of cores and computes the usage to be represented as a bar graph. wmcore works with a variable number of cores, it has been tested with 1 up to 16 (simulated) cores. Fedora Account System Username: mariobl Koji scratch build: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
This review request is marked as NotReady for the time being. Currently, there's no real download uri, just a php download link. I've contacted the developer about this: http://www.bitmania.de/index.php?page=35#comments (sorry, in German only)
There is a tarball available now from the project page. Updated files: Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/wmcore.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4247026 Regarding the old FSF address, I've already contacted the developer. Lifted NotReady again.
(In reply to comment #2) > Regarding the old FSF address, I've already contacted the developer. > The developer has provided a new tarball at the same place, and I've updated my files (same download links for spec and srpm).
Taking for review.
Some issues: - The licensing situation is unclear. There are some files with GPLv2+ headers (list.[ch], misc.c), and some without any license headers (wmcore.c, wmgeneral.[ch]). Can you ask upstream for clarification how these are licensed and, if possible, add license headers to the source files in the tarball? - We have a policy that all GUI apps must ship a .desktop file. Would it make sense to have one for this package?
(In reply to comment #5) > - The licensing situation is unclear. There are some files with GPLv2+ > headers (list.[ch], misc.c), and some without any license headers (wmcore.c, > wmgeneral.[ch]). Can you ask upstream for clarification how these are > licensed and, if possible, add license headers to the source files in the > tarball? > There is no official bugtracker for wmcore. I've informed the developer by mail. > - We have a policy that all GUI apps must ship a .desktop file. Would it > make sense to have one for this package? No, such dockapps doesn't need a *.desktop file, although you can run them in windowed mode. See bug #478744. Usually, dockapps will be started from command line with some arguments because we have no gui configuration tool in most cases. Moreover, mostly you cannot submit a file when starting a dockapp. That's why it would be odd to provide menu entries or MIME type associations.
The developer has updated the source tarball. The file wmcore.c includes now a license header. Regarding the files wmgeneral.c and wmgeneral.h: These files are widely used by almost all dockapps. The current header says where they initially come from, that's why we should assume it is also GPLv2+. The Debian packagers have an explicite license declaration: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/b/bbrun/bbrun_1.6-5/bbrun.copyright This is from bbrun, which is also a dockapp and uses the same files, as already mentioned. Moreover, I maintain some more dockapp packages in Fedora which use these files too. If a license header is needed, I had to change almost all of them. Patching is senseless in this case, and most of the developers are no longer available. Files (spec and srpm) are available from the same location.
Excellent. Does this mean that all code files are now under "GPL version 2 or later"? The spec file currently says GPL v2 only.
(In reply to comment #8) > The spec file currently says GPL v2 only. Oops, forget to change it. New files are at the same location again.
Fedora review wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm 2012-07-22 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint wmcore \ wmcore-debuginfo \ wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm wmcore.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Paddock wmcore.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, paddock wmcore.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Paddock wmcore.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, paddock wmcore.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wmcore wmcore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmcore-0.0.2/misc.c wmcore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmcore-0.0.2/list.h wmcore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmcore-0.0.2/list.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. + Rpmlint warnings/errors are harmless and can be ignored + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm. md5sum: da16cea009f32a3152a81a3619ec90e1 wmcore-0.0.2.tar.gz da16cea009f32a3152a81a3619ec90e1 Download/wmcore-0.0.2.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a Proper locale handling n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Looks good. APPROVED
Thanks for your review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: wmcore Short Description: Dockapp that shows the usage of each core in the system Owners: mariobl Branches: f16 f17
Removed fedora-review+ by accidence...
Git done (by process-git-requests).
wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc17
wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc16
wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.