Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Bug ID: 953379 Summary: Review Request: tipcutils - Utils package required to configure TIPC Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lsm5@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: erik.hugne@ericsson.com, lsm5@fedoraproject.org, misc@zarb.org, notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Depends On: 854256 Blocks: 177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Category: ---
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #854256 +++
Spec URL: http://marvin.hb0da.org/~dev/tipcutils.spec SRPM URL: http://marvin.hb0da.org/~dev/tipcutils-2.0.3-0.src.rpm Description: Hi. Fedora seems to be missing a package containing the userspace tools necessary to configure TIPC (/net/tipc).
This package contains the tipc-config program, and also tipc-pipe, which is a netcat-like program that runs over TIPC links.
Fedora Account System Username: ehugne
--- Additional comment from Michael Scherer on 2012-09-06 01:59:41 EDT ---
Hi,
since you are not in the packager group, you need a sponsor first http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
On your spec, there is various issue with it : - it doesn have a changelog - you should use macro for path, rather than for well know executable
- BuildArch: x86_64 is wrong, unless there is a reason and then it should be explained
- %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/configure you should use the macro %configure, or if it doesn't work, ./configure
- the license file should be shipped as %doc
- BuildRoot is not needed, %clean eithe,r as seen on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean ( the rest of the rules are also on this page, so I recommend to read it carefully )
There is surely other stuff to fix, but I do not want to overwhelm you for the first comment :)
--- Additional comment from Erik Hugne on 2012-09-07 10:47:23 EDT ---
Thanks for the prompt feedback. I have adressed your comments, and have one open question regarding the license. Is it required to have this as a separate file? All files in tipcutils have the license prepended to them.
--- Additional comment from Erik Hugne on 2012-09-24 05:07:08 EDT ---
The srpm/spec links still from the first request still apply: Spec URL: http://marvin.hb0da.org/~dev/tipcutils.spec SRPM URL: http://marvin.hb0da.org/~dev/tipcutils-2.0.3-0.src.rpm
--- Additional comment from Lokesh Mandvekar on 2013-04-13 02:08:13 EDT ---
Hi Erik,
Well, first off thanks for helping me use TIPC 2.0 with UDP bearers sometime back.
Are you still interested in proceeding with this review request?
If you are (and I'm hoping you would be), I'd like to help with the package review, coz this program is useful to me too. I'm not a sponsor and I'm in process of getting my first package reviewed.
* The Release number needs to be incremented everytime you make a change to the spec file, along with a Changelog entry for it.
* Fedora requires that files not be directly installed to /sbin. /usr/sbin is preferable in this case. Check this out: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout
* In the %files section, use macros for directory names (for eg. %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin)
* Run rpmlint on the spec, srpm and binary rpm files and post their outputs.
* Run the srpm file through koji and provide a link to the build here. Koji HOWTOs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system?rd=Koji/UsingKoji
* The Source URL isn't accessible anymore. Could you please check that out?
There might be other issues (but I'm sorta new to reviewing myself, and will revisit this as and when I learn new stuff).
--- Additional comment from Lokesh Mandvekar on 2013-04-13 02:13:03 EDT ---
macros to be used in %files: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_section
--- New Request --- I would like to assume maintainership of this package and have already talked to the upstream developers about this.
FAS username: lsm5
Spec URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/tipcutils.spec SRPM URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.src.rpm
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5269869
$ rpmlint SPECS/tipcutils.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.src.rpm tipcutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #1 from Erik Hugne erik.hugne@ericsson.com --- *** Bug 854256 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Bug 953379 depends on bug 854256, which changed state.
Bug 854256 Summary: Review Request: tipcutils - Utils package required to configure TIPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854256
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@fedoraproject.org --- Potential reviewers of this package, please find latest updates toward the end of Comment 1. Thanks.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@buffalo.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tchollingsworth@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tchollingsworth@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #3 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com ---
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== Issues =====
[!]: License is listed as "BSD", but no copy of the license is included.
The BSD license states:
"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
In order to comply with this clause of the license, a copy of the license text MUST be included in %doc. You can either work with upstream to include one, or include one yourself.
For more information on handling this situation, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[!]: The $PREFIX is hardcoded.
You shouldn't need this at all, as it's handled by the %configure macro. If you do need it, please use PREFIX=%{_prefix} instead.
[!]: The upstream tarball includes an initscript, but this package does not ship a systemd service.
Is the functionality provided by the initscript necessary or desired?
[!]: The provided spec file and the spec in the SRPM differ.
Please make sure they are identical next time.
===== Things to Consider ====
[ ]: The %files section contains an unnecessary %defattr line.
This package does not contain the remaning necessary boilerplate to be supported on RHEL 5, and this line is no longer necessary in modern Fedora. Please consider removing it.
[ ]: The summary and description could use some more work.
Please consider briefly explaining what TIPC is.
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/953379-tipcutils/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [!]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.src.rpm tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm tipcutils-debuginfo-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm tipcutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
OK
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint tipcutils-debuginfo tipcutils tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
OK
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/953379-tipcutils/srpm/tipcutils.spec 2013-04-19 00:58:31.596004095 -0400 +++ /home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/953379-tipcutils/srpm-unpacked/tipcutils.spec 2013-04-19 00:58:32.764004350 -0400 @@ -4,5 +4,5 @@ License: BSD URL: http://tipc.sourceforge.net/ -Summary: Utils package required to configure TIPC +Summary: TIPC utilities Source0: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SOURCES/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar...
Ple
Requires -------- tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
tipcutils-debuginfo-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm:
tipcutils = 2.0.5-1.fc20 tipcutils(x86-64) = 2.0.5-1.fc20
tipcutils-debuginfo-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm:
tipcutils-debuginfo = 2.0.5-1.fc20 tipcutils-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2.0.5-1.fc20
MD5-sum check ------------- http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SOURCES/tipcutils-2.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1d71acd6d4cfa6f8161cefa27ef89a89bfb9fd968f5467b59afff315a5c26f5e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1d71acd6d4cfa6f8161cefa27ef89a89bfb9fd968f5467b59afff315a5c26f5e
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (f4bc12d) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-vanilla-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b953379
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(lsm5@buffalo.edu)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@buffalo.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lsm5@buffalo.edu) |
--- Comment #4 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@buffalo.edu --- Spec URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/tipcutils.spec SRPM URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/tipcutils-2.0.5-2.fc20.src.rpm
$ rpmlint SPECS/tipcutils.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/tipcutils-2.0.5-2.fc20.src.rpm tipcutils.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Utils -> Tills tipcutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace tipcutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tipc -> tip, tic, tips tipcutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure tipcutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> eh, e, g tipcutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reconfiguring -> re configuring, re-configuring, recon figuring tipcutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netcat -> net cat, net-cat, Netscape 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/tipcutils-2.0.5-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Utils -> Tills tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tipc -> tip, tic, tips tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> eh, e, g tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reconfiguring -> re configuring, re-configuring, recon figuring tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netcat -> net cat, net-cat, Netscape 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Upstream said, License is prepended to each file, so they won't be including a separate LICENSE file.
Default is to not install any scripts, installed only if explicitly mentioned using: ./configure --enable-scripts
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #5 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@buffalo.edu --- PREFIX not needed in spec file, removed.
SRPM URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/tipcutils-2.0.5-3.fc20.src.rpm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #6 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #4)
Upstream said, License is prepended to each file, so they won't be including a separate LICENSE file.
Unfortunately, upstream's unwillingness to add a LICENSE file does not absolve us from the BSD's requirement to provide a copy of the license along with binary copies of the software. Please include a copy of the LICENSE somehow.
You could do something like this in %prep to avoid having to create your own LICENSE file: head -n31 tipc-config/tipc-config.c | tail -n28 | sed 's/ * //g' > LICENSE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Albert Strasheim fullung@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fullung@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Albert Strasheim fullung@gmail.com --- As a matter of interest, is the Fedora kernel getting CONFIG_TIPC at some point?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #8 from Erik Hugne erik.hugne@ericsson.com --- (In reply to comment #7)
As a matter of interest, is the Fedora kernel getting CONFIG_TIPC at some point?
It was actually included in earlier versions of Fedora. But back then, there was a parallell development track on Sourceforge going on that left the in-kernel code basically unmaintained. This understandably led to this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574800
Since then, the Sourceforge track have been dropped and merged to the kernel.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #9 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@buffalo.edu --- Sorry for the (possible) double post, I tried commenting via email, but doesn't seem to have worked. Anyway:
SRPM url: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/tipcutils-2.0.5-4.fc20.src.rpm
%changelog * Mon Apr 22 2013 Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@buffalo.edu - 2.0.5-4 - LICENSE file generated
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- In the future, please don't forget to provide and update the standalone spec file URL. It makes it easier to check that simple little things like this have been fixed.
This package is APPROVED.
Please file a bug against the kernel if this package needs configuration options in the kernel turned on to be functional.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@buffalo.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@buffalo.edu --- T.C: Thanks for approving this, I'll be mindful of that moving forward.
----------------------------------
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: tipcutils Short Description: Utils package required to configure TIPC Owners: lsm5 Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags| |fedora-cvs+
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tipcutils-2.0.5-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tipcutils-2.0.5-4.fc19
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tipcutils-2.0.5-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tipcutils-2.0.5-4.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tipcutils-2.0.5-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tipcutils-2.0.5-4.el6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tipcutils-2.0.5-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-05-06 00:23:51
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tipcutils-2.0.5-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tipcutils-2.0.5-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |tipcutils-2.0.5-4.el6
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- tipcutils-2.0.5-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla