Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: nmon - Nigel's performance MONitor for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Summary: Review Request: nmon - Nigel's performance MONitor for Linux Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dylan.swift@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/nmonfedora/home/nmon-12d-1-src-rpm/nmon-12d-1.s... SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/nmonfedora/home/nmon-12d-1-src-rpm/nmon.spec?at... Description: This systems administrator, tuner, benchmark tool gives you a huge amount of important performance information in one go. The data can be accessed in two ways: 1. On screen (console/terminal based using curses) 2. Dump to CSV file (data can be accessed using 'nmon analyser excel 2000 spreadsheet', added to rrd database, or read via your own tools)
This is my first package and I am seeking a sponsor
I also need hosting space
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dylan.swift@gmail.com Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-09-18 09:33:06 EDT --- - Drop the 'rm' statements from %prep, they are not necessary.
- Drop the patch and the hard link, they are not necessary. Instead, just compile the program manually in %build (the makefile is trivial and badly written) with gcc $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -D JFS -D GETUSER -D LARGEMEM -o nmon lmon%{version}.c
- In %install, just run rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -D -p -m 755 nmon $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/nmon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-09-18 09:34:41 EDT --- - Add %{?dist} to your release tag.
- Drop the explicit Require, it's automatically picked up by rpm. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski rpm@greysector.net 2009-09-18 09:42:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
- Drop the patch and the hard link, they are not necessary. Instead, just
compile the program manually in %build (the makefile is trivial and badly written) with gcc $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -D JFS -D GETUSER -D LARGEMEM -o nmon lmon%{version}.c
- In %install, just run
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -D -p -m 755 nmon $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/nmon
I believe it is better to fix the build system and send the fixes upstream. That way other distributions won't have to invent their own workarounds. And since this software is really simple to build, it shouldn't be too difficult to fix the default build target and add an install target to the Makefile.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-09-18 09:51:31 EDT --- Yes, but IMHO that patch does not fix the brokenness of the upstream makefile, it's still hopelessly complicated. (Actually, I'm missing -lncurses in the compile command in comment #2).
Just a simple makefile would do:
**
CC=cc CFLAGS=-g -O2 -Wall LDFLAGS=-lncurses EXTRADEFS=
default: nmon nmon: nmon.c $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -D JFS -D GETUSER -D LARGEMEM $(EXTRADEFS) $(LDFLAGS) -o nmon nmon.c
**
Normally, one would just run $ make and if one is on special architectures, like power or mainframe which need special definitions, one would run e.g. $ make EXTRADEFS="-D POWER"
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #5 from Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com 2009-09-18 18:35:52 EDT --- Thanks for the input Dominik & Jussi. I have implemented the changes in Jussi's comments and will refer Nigel (the original author) back to your comments Dominik as he has 'control' of the makefile.
Jussi - if I add %{?dist} to the release tag then the src rpm becomes labelled with the os version. Is this normal? because this would mean having to release a different version for each current version of Fedora, where I think that the spec file could be modified to support all versions (adding any necessary changes when new releases are made).
Does anyone know the normal method for testing this on alternate distributions. I have a qemu vm running Fedora 11, and have found a few issues which may or may not be to do with the new OS, or this particular installation, namely gcc builds with debug info in the rpm, rather than in a seperate rpm. I don't know if this is a rpmbuild or gcc issue. This does require fixing as it is issued as a warning when running rpmlint on the binary rpm files.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-09-19 10:16:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
Thanks for the input Dominik & Jussi. I have implemented the changes in Jussi's comments and will refer Nigel (the original author) back to your comments Dominik as he has 'control' of the makefile.
Jussi - if I add %{?dist} to the release tag then the src rpm becomes labelled with the os version. Is this normal? because this would mean having to release a different version for each current version of Fedora, where I think that the spec file could be modified to support all versions (adding any necessary changes when new releases are made).
Yes, it is. The spec file is completely general, and if you build e.g. a .f11 srpm on Fedora 10 you'll get out a .f10 RPM.
Does anyone know the normal method for testing this on alternate distributions. I have a qemu vm running Fedora 11, and have found a few issues which may or may not be to do with the new OS, or this particular installation, namely gcc builds with debug info in the rpm, rather than in a seperate rpm. I don't know if this is a rpmbuild or gcc issue. This does require fixing as it is issued as a warning when running rpmlint on the binary rpm files.
Do you have redhat-rpm-config installed?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #7 from Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com 2009-09-19 14:57:31 EDT ---
Yes, it is. The spec file is completely general, and if you build e.g. a .f11 srpm on Fedora 10 you'll get out a .f10 RPM.
Aha! Of Course! (somewhere, a light comes on)
So just to clarify, what you're saying is that even if the f10 & f11 SRPMS are identical, there still needs to be two seperate SRPMS, rather than one without the %{?dist} tag?
That now begs another question - do I need to change this 'review request' submission from rawhide to Fedora 10, and then submit another for Fedora 11?
Do you have redhat-rpm-config installed?
I do now, thanks. That has sorted it out.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-09-19 16:53:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7)
Yes, it is. The spec file is completely general, and if you build e.g. a .f11 srpm on Fedora 10 you'll get out a .f10 RPM.
Aha! Of Course! (somewhere, a light comes on)
So just to clarify, what you're saying is that even if the f10 & f11 SRPMS are identical, there still needs to be two seperate SRPMS, rather than one without the %{?dist} tag?
Not exactly. The RPMs built on different distributions from the same SRPM will be different. But in the review it is generally enough that the package builds in the development tree (rawhide).
That now begs another question - do I need to change this 'review request' submission from rawhide to Fedora 10, and then submit another for Fedora 11?
No. The %{?dist} tag is a SHOULD item, and comes from the fact that once the package has been approved and imported in Fedora CVS, you won't be able to build the package for e.g. Fedora 10 and Fedora 11, since the build system won't allow you to tag multiple spec files with the same version and release.
Do you have redhat-rpm-config installed?
I do now, thanks. That has sorted it out.
Funny, it should have been part of the standard package set for some time now..
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #9 from Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com 2009-09-20 04:05:18 EDT ---
So just to clarify, what you're saying is that even if the f10 & f11 SRPMS are identical, there still needs to be two seperate SRPMS, rather than one without the %{?dist} tag?
Not exactly. The RPMs built on different distributions from the same SRPM will be different. But in the review it is generally enough that the package builds in the development tree (rawhide).
That still confuses me - why then have different SRPMS if they contain the same course and SPEC files?
That now begs another question - do I need to change this 'review request' submission from rawhide to Fedora 10, and then submit another for Fedora 11?
No. The %{?dist} tag is a SHOULD item, and comes from the fact that once the package has been approved and imported in Fedora CVS, you won't be able to build the package for e.g. Fedora 10 and Fedora 11, since the build system won't allow you to tag multiple spec files with the same version and release.
so does that mean it is only possible to add new packages to rawhide and not to currently supported distributions (f10 & f11)
also surely it is the other way around, a single SPEC file (in a single SRPM) for multiple distributions?
Do you have redhat-rpm-config installed?
I do now, thanks. That has sorted it out.
Funny, it should have been part of the standard package set for some time now..
I had built a minimal F11 in a VM, and must have unchecked something I shouldn't have (though surely redhat-rpm-config should still have been immutable?). I think I will rebuild the VM using the defined minimum, and not muck about with the kickstart. Then I shall use mock to test the build rather than just the OS in the VM.
Thanks for your help so far.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-09-20 04:15:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9)
Not exactly. The RPMs built on different distributions from the same SRPM will be different. But in the review it is generally enough that the package builds in the development tree (rawhide).
That still confuses me - why then have different SRPMS if they contain the same course and SPEC files?
Who said anything about having to have multiple SRPMs? :) When you generate an srpm, the %{?dist} tag in the Release field gets evaluated to the value it has on the distribution. So even though the SRPMs generated on Fedora 10 and Fedora 11 were identical in their content, they still would get different versions.
But if you built the Fedora 10 SRPM on Fedora 11, you would get out Fedora 11 RPMs.
No. The %{?dist} tag is a SHOULD item, and comes from the fact that once the package has been approved and imported in Fedora CVS, you won't be able to build the package for e.g. Fedora 10 and Fedora 11, since the build system won't allow you to tag multiple spec files with the same version and release.
so does that mean it is only possible to add new packages to rawhide and not to currently supported distributions (f10 & f11)
No. If you don't use the %{?dist} tag, then you can add e.g. the -1 release to F10, the -2 release to F11 and the -3 release to rawhide. With the dist tag, you can have e.g. -3%{?dist} in all of the distros, since they will be evaluated as different (-3.fc10, -3.fc11 and -3.fc12).
also surely it is the other way around, a single SPEC file (in a single SRPM) for multiple distributions?
The whole idea of the %{?dist} tag is to make this possible within the limitations of the build system. Once again: even though the spec file were identical on all of the distributions, the release tag of the RPMs/SRPMs generated from it have different revisions since %{?dist} is evaluted to e.g. fc11.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #11 from Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com 2009-09-20 05:29:45 EDT ---
That still confuses me - why then have different SRPMS if they contain the > same course and SPEC files?
Who said anything about having to have multiple SRPMs? :) When you generate an srpm, the %{?dist} tag in the Release field gets evaluated to the value it has on the distribution. So even though the SRPMs generated on Fedora 10 and Fedora 11 were identical in their content, they still would get different versions.
when I run rpmbuild -ba I get an SRPM file with the %{?dist} tag in the filename. So when I run on my f10 machine I get one file, when I run on my f11 machine I get another.
But if you built the Fedora 10 SRPM on Fedora 11, you would get out Fedora 11 RPMs.
Understood
No. The %{?dist} tag is a SHOULD item, and comes from the fact that once
the
package has been approved and imported in Fedora CVS, you won't be able to build the package for e.g. Fedora 10 and Fedora 11, since the build system won't allow you to tag multiple spec files with the same version and
release.
so does that mean it is only possible to add new packages to rawhide and
not to
currently supported distributions (f10 & f11)
No. If you don't use the %{?dist} tag, then you can add e.g. the -1 release to F10, the -2 release to F11 and the -3 release to rawhide. With the dist tag, you can have e.g. -3%{?dist} in all of the distros, since they will be evaluated as different (-3.fc10, -3.fc11 and -3.fc12).
also surely it is the other way around, a single SPEC file (in a single
SRPM)
for multiple distributions?
The whole idea of the %{?dist} tag is to make this possible within the limitations of the build system. Once again: even though the spec file were identical on all of the distributions, the release tag of the RPMs/SRPMs generated from it have different revisions since %{?dist} is evaluted to e.g. fc11.
but if the %{?dist} tag is irrelevant to the binary (the system building the binary determines that) then why have the %{?dist} tag in the SRPM?
Ultimately what I need to know is what do I upload nmon-12d-1-f10.srpm or nmon-12d-1-f11.srpm or does it not matter?
I haven't attempted to build on f12 yet - I don't have a copy of the latest. Should I be worried about that?
thanks again for your help on this.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin.gieseking@uos.de
--- Comment #12 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2009-09-21 10:09:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11)
Ultimately what I need to know is what do I upload nmon-12d-1-f10.srpm or nmon-12d-1-f11.srpm or does it not matter?
You can use either of them. To put it simply, it's not the filename that matters here but the contents of the file.
I haven't attempted to build on f12 yet - I don't have a copy of the latest. Should I be worried about that?
No, you don't need to worry about that and you don't need to install several Fedora releases either. With the koji build system it's possible to create scratch builds for various targets and Fedora versions. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UsingKoji#Scratch_builds_2 for instance. You can also use mock to build rpms for different Fedora/EPEL releases on your current system. Install mock, then use ls /etc/mock to get a list of available, pre-configured targets.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(dylan.swift@gmail | |.com)
--- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-10-11 11:25:17 EDT --- Well, then what is the status of this bug? Where is the latest srpm?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(dylan.swift@gmail | |.com) |
--- Comment #14 from Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com 2009-10-11 14:01:12 EDT --- Hi Mamoru,
I hope to be able to upload this very soon - I've been stalled by other work!
Dylan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |NotReady
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(dylan.swift@gmail | |.com)
--- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-07-04 10:45:59 EDT --- What is the status of this bug?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(dylan.swift@gmail | |.com) |
--- Comment #16 from Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com 2010-07-12 03:55:30 EDT --- Hi Mamoru,
I'm currently trying to re-package the latest version (13g).
I am still stuck as to how to proceed to get this package sponsored. Is there anyone who has any guidance on what to do next to get sponsored?
In the meantime I will try to get a binary rpm available somewhere online for those who are keen to use the package outside of the fedora repos.
Rgds
Dylan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com
--- Comment #17 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-07-12 04:10:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16)
Hi Mamoru,
I'm currently trying to re-package the latest version (13g).
I am still stuck as to how to proceed to get this package sponsored. Is there anyone who has any guidance on what to do next to get sponsored?
In the meantime I will try to get a binary rpm available somewhere online for those who are keen to use the package outside of the fedora repos.
Rgds
Dylan
google is your friend :)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Ankur
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #18 from Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com 2010-07-12 05:53:02 EDT --- Thanks Ankur,
now I understand that *I* need to be sponsored, not the package!
I'll get to work on that.
Dylan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #19 from d. johnson drjohnson1@gmail.com 2010-08-09 21:55:45 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=437742) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=437742) Corrected spec file
After using the attached spec file, rpmlint only complains a little:
$ rpmlint *.rpm nmon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyser -> analyzer, analysis, analyst nmon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyser -> analyzer, analysis, analyst nmon.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nmon 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
The author really needs to include a copy of the license file, and a man page of some sort in the package itself.
Archiving off http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/display/WikiPtype/nmon+Manual would be better than nothing.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #20 from Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com 2010-08-18 18:27:31 EDT --- Thanks d. johnson for the spec file. I shall take a look over the next couple of days & hope to get back to you over this coming weekend.
I have a man page ready to put in - I chose not to use the wiki as that is for nmon, and this package is actually from nmon for linux. I didn't want to pollute the manpage with any options that might not be available in the linux version event though they ultimately come from the same source. However I think I may now take a better look at the nmon wiki and see if there is some useful content.
Dylan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #21 from Troels Arvin troels@arvin.dk 2010-11-25 06:17:13 EST --- Is there a way to help moving this RFE forward? I use nmon on all my Linuxes and find that it's a very valuable tool. So it would be nice to have it available as a simple "yum install nmon" option.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #22 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2011-03-13 16:06:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20)
Thanks d. johnson for the spec file. I shall take a look over the next couple of days & hope to get back to you over this coming weekend.
I have a man page ready to put in - I chose not to use the wiki as that is for nmon, and this package is actually from nmon for linux. I didn't want to pollute the manpage with any options that might not be available in the linux version event though they ultimately come from the same source. However I think I may now take a better look at the nmon wiki and see if there is some useful content.
Dylan
Ping Dylan?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #23 from Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com 2011-03-13 19:04:16 EDT --- Ping Ankur,
gosh I'm so sorry folks, I hadn't realised so much time had passed! (lots of work trips, and a new baby consumed all my spare cycles)
Let me see if I can't get something together in the next week.
Dylan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) rdassen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |714194
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #24 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2011-12-16 05:13:21 EST --- Ping Dylan?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
--- Comment #25 from Dylan Swift dylan.swift@gmail.com 2011-12-16 06:08:32 EST --- Pong,
Hi Jussi
I have just been learning a lot about building rpms (at work) so I plan to get this up to the latest version soon.
I did discover someone else packaging this I thought it was dag wieers, but I can't locate the package now so you might have better luck finding it elsewhere.
Dylan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |terjeros@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #26 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2012-03-15 17:43:12 EDT --- Seems like a nice app, created an update spec:
spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/nmon/nmon.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/nmon/nmon-14g-1.fc16.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3893484
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119
David Juran djuran@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |djuran@redhat.com
--- Comment #27 from David Juran djuran@redhat.com 2012-04-04 08:53:48 EDT --- Starting with rpmlint: nmon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyser -> analyses, analyzer, analysand UK vs. US spelling. I guess...
nmon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rrd -> red, rd, rid OK
But really, I would exchange the entire description section for something short and concise like "System administrator's tuner and benchmark tool. Can be used interactivly through curses-based CLI or export CSV data"
nmon.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nmon-14g/Documentation.txt Fix it in the %prep section with sed: sed -i 's/\r//' src/somefile or dos2unix.
nmon.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nmon http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Man_pages
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org