https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Bug ID: 1121358 Summary: Review Request: xmlrpc-epi - An implementation of the XML-RPC protocol in C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: shawn.starr@rogers.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
I am taking over ownership of this package as it's a dependency needed to build Second Life and simple to manage it.
SPEC: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/review/xmlrpc-epi.spec SRPM: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/review/xmlrpc-epi-0.54.2-1.fc21.src...
Description:
The xmlrpc-epi-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing applications that use xmlrpc-epi.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |rdieter@math.unl.edu Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rdieter@math.unl.edu Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- $ rpmlint xmlrpc-epi xmlrpc-epi-devel xmlrpc-epi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xmlrpc-epi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Naming: ok
License: ok
Sources: ok 081e605491429cda17c5f021f211b8fd xmlrpc-epi-0.54.2.tar.bz2
scriptlets: ok
1. SHOULD omit deprecated .spec constructs including: Group:,BuildRoot: tags %defattr lines (empty) %clean section
2. -devel subpkg MUST use %{?_isa} for main dep dependency, like: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
3. SHOULD document the need/use-of rm -r %{buildroot}%{_bindir} in %install section (preferably in a .spec comment) As far as I can tell, this is not needed, and can be removed.
4. SHOULD drop uneccessary BuildRequires: libtool
5. document (or remove) this item in %build section: cp -pv [A-Z]* .. As far as I can tell, this is not needed, and can be removed.
6. SHOULD explicitly track library soname (so bumps aren't surprising). e.g. replace %{_libdir}/libxmlrpc-epi.so.* with %{_libdir}/libxmlrpc-epi.so.0*
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
--- Comment #2 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- SPEC: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/review/xmlrpc-epi.spec SRPM: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/review/xmlrpc-epi-0.54.2-1.fc21.src...
1. SHOULD omit deprecated .spec constructs including: Group:,BuildRoot: tags %defattr lines (empty) %clean section
-- FIXED
2. -devel subpkg MUST use %{?_isa} for main dep dependency, like: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
-- FIXED
3. SHOULD document the need/use-of rm -r %{buildroot}%{_bindir} in %install section (preferably in a .spec comment) As far as I can tell, this is not needed, and can be removed.
-- DOCUMENTED: Those are test tools, we don't need them installed
4. SHOULD drop uneccessary BuildRequires: libtool
-- FIXED
5. document (or remove) this item in %build section: cp -pv [A-Z]* .. As far as I can tell, this is not needed, and can be removed.
-- FIXED not needed
6. SHOULD explicitly track library soname (so bumps aren't surprising). e.g. replace %{_libdir}/libxmlrpc-epi.so.* with %{_libdir}/libxmlrpc-epi.so.0*
-- FIXED now explicit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- Looks good, APPROVED (though you didn't increment Release, it's a good idea to that even for reviews)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
--- Comment #4 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: xmlrpc-epi Short Description: An implementation of the XML-RPC protocol in C Upstream URL: http://xmlrpc-epi.sourceforge.net/ Owners: spstarr Branches: fc21 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- resetting review flag, I think you meant fedora-cvs flag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |shawn.starr@rogers.com Flags| |needinfo?(shawn.starr@roger | |s.com)
--- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- Ping, I don't see any imports or builds yet. Did you forget or have some problem I can help with?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(shawn.starr@roger | |s.com) |
--- Comment #8 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Sorry, I've just gotten back to things. Attempted to push (and remove dead.package).
W access for xmlrpc-epi DENIED to spstarr
Can someone fix please?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: xmlrpc-epi Short Description: An implementation of the XML-RPC protocol in C Upstream URL: http://xmlrpc-epi.sourceforge.net/ Owners: spstarr Branches: fc21 devel InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
--- Comment #10 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- I meant...
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xmlrpc-epi New Branches: devel Owners: spstarr InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
--- Comment #11 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xmlrpc-epi New Branches: devel Owners: spstarr InitialCC:
Third time's a charm, right?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
--- Comment #12 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xmlrpc-epi New Branches: fc21 devel Owners: spstarr InitialCC:
Third time's a charm, right?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
--- Comment #13 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- Let's try this version instead:
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xmlrpc-epi New Branches: f21 devel Owners: spstarr rdieter InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
--- Comment #14 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xmlrpc-epi New Branches: f21 devel Owners: spstarr rdieter InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121358
Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2015-06-06 00:12:18
--- Comment #16 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- This is already in Fedora 22
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org