[Bug 510651] Review Request: trafshow - A tool for real-time network traffic visualization

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=510651





--- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan at hubbitus.info>  2009-07-19 15:55:56 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Nice tool! It is less colorful than iptraf but simpler to use for getting a
> quick overview of what is going on.
> 
> I have reviewed the package and found a couple of minor points:
Thank you.

> It seems like the spec comes from altlinux?
Yes.

> It would be nice to state the
> explicit and give them credit. Perhaps we don't want to keep their old
> changelog.
Otk, would it be. I mention previous authors and delete old changelog records.

> I suggest that URL should point to the english version at
> http://soft.risp.ru/trafshow/index_en.shtml . It is just the man page with a
> link to a site (in russian) where it can be downloaded.
I initially already thinking make link to english version of page... but, as
you right mention it is only man, and absoluteley not correlated with russioan
"true" project page :( In this case I thing it is not best idea provide in URL
tag link to manual instead of offsite project page.

> I could however not
> connect to the ftp download site and verify. But it seems like they only have
> trafshow-4.0.tgz available for download? Where do trafshow-5.2.3.tgz come from?
It come from their ftp (see link in Source0). And yes, it is seems down now.

> What do the "upstream dead" comment mean? Do we want a package without a living
> upstream? Or is you de facto the upstream and willing to take that
> responsibility?
I suppose what it is dead because new version not released from 2000 year
(according http site, according ftp few less). But, I'm ver-very many time use
trafshow on my several servers, starting from ~Fedora 2. It works perfectly. As
you can see by patches and comments, I minor modify it. And ask to you question
- no, I is not upstream developer and don't want fork it. But, as I can do it
many times before, I'm willing maintain it. And build/compatibility problems I
willing resolve if can in the future. So, I think there no problem.

> The "cflags" and "make install" "comments" should perhaps just be removed. The
> other comment(s) could also be cleaned up.
Ok, its cleaned.

> The %doc INSTALL isn't relevant in the package and shouldn't be included.
Done.

> There seems to be a spurious tab in the changelog. The spec is also partially
> aligned using tabs. Either do it consistently or don't do it.
Hm... I'm always use tabs... May be there appeared in cleaned changelog (comed
from alt) part? Please, see now.


(In reply to comment #2)
> Just some other comments
> 
> - 'Source: ftp://ftp.nsk.su/pub/RinetSoftware/%name-%version.tgz' should be
> 'Source: ftp://ftp.nsk.su/pub/RinetSoftware/%{name}-%{version}.tgz'
Estetic issue? :) Ok, let it be.

> - Isn't 'ncurses' automatically picked up during the build process?
> - Why aren't you using parallel build for make? 
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
Now use. Thank you.
> - Often it's possible to change the installation target with PREFIX=%{_prefix}
> - The man pages are automatically compressed during the build process.
I think not in this case. I was fast searching in generated Makefile and wasn't
find such capability. I make decision do installation manually. There it is not
big deal.


http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/trafshow/trafshow-5.2.3-3.fc11.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.