Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/network/bip.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/bip-0.7.0-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Bip is an IRC proxy, which means it keeps connected to your preferred IRC servers, can store the logs for you, and even send them back to your IRC client(s) upon connection. You may want to use bip to keep your logfiles (in a unique format and on a unique computer) whatever your client is, when you connect from multiple workstations, or when you simply want to have a playback of what was said while you were away. Notes: - rpmlint on built package gives no errors - builds cleanly on mock (on my system, at least) Questions: - I have another package under review, don't know if I have to add FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker also here or not
I can't sponsor you, but as reviewer I just tried to build it and it seems OK.
Gianluca. verify that it builds is one step, but for a proper review you should follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Gianluca. verifying that it builds is one step, but for a proper review you should follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
I haven't tried bip out yet, but version 0.7.2 of bip is out...
Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/network/bip.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/bip-0.7.2-1.fc8.src.rpm Bumped to the new version
*** Bug 442219 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/network/bip.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/bip-0.7.2-2.fc8.src.rpm * Sun Apr 13 2008 Lorenzo Villani <lvillani> - 0.7.2-2 - Added AUTHORS, ChangeLog, COPYING, INSTALL, README, TODO to docdir - added --enable-ssl to %configure, just to make sure that bip is built with SSL support using OpenSSL
Please do not package INSTALL. It is only useful for people building from source.
Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/network/bip.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/bip-0.7.2-3.fc8.src.rpm * Mon Apr 14 2008 Lorenzo Villani <lvillani> - 0.7.2-3 - Removed INSTALL from %doc
FYI: Darryl L. Pierce (dpierce) wants to co-maintain this package and I agreed to co-maintain the package with him.
One very minor thing, instead of: rm -rf %{buildroot}/usr/share/doc/bip Please use: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_defaultdocdir}/bip Why? 1. You need to be consistent with $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}. You've already used $RPM_BUILD_ROOT above this line. 2. _defaultdocdir == /usr/share/doc
Also, this isn't building with the Fedora OPTFLAGS. Making this change will resolve it: Before: make %{?_smp_mflags} After: make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
Oh yes, rpmlint says: bip.src:52: W: macro-in-%changelog doc bip.src:56: W: macro-in-%changelog configure bip.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/bip-0.7.2/ChangeLog Please resolve these three warnings (hint, if you have any %macros in changelog entries, change them to %%macros). To fix the ChangeLog, do this in %prep: iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 -o ChangeLog{.utf8,} mv ChangeLog{.utf8,} Show me a new SPEC/SRPM with all of these items resolved and I'll finish the review.
Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/network/bip.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/bip-0.7.2-4.fc9.src.rpm * Wed Apr 30 2008 Lorenzo Villani <lvillani> - 0.7.2-4 - Convert ChangeLog to utf-8 in prep - Ensure that package is compiled using RPM_OPT_FLAGS - Make usage of RPM_BUILD_ROOT consistent - Removed macros from ChangeLog (bad mistake)
I don't think you need that explicit Requires: openssl, since the package picks it up automatically (see libcrypto.so.7 and libssl.so.7): Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libcrypto.so.7()(64bit) libssl.so.7()(64bit) openssl rtld(GNU_HASH) Also, the license should be GPLv2+, not GPLv2. Minor distinction, but the code all has: * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. * See the file "COPYING" for the exact licensing terms. Make those two corrections and I'll approve. REVIEW ======= - rpmlint checks return nothing. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPLv2+) OK, text in %doc - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (94c1b44bd49c65dde5d006b2df236449a53a1aa9) - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file
Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/specs/network/bip.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/bip-0.7.2-4.fc9.src.rpm * Wed Apr 30 2008 Lorenzo Villani <lvillani> - 0.7.2-5 - Corrected License field - Removed openssl from Requires
Approved. :) I will also sponsor you.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: bip Short Description: IRC Bouncer Owners: arbiter Branches: F-9 EL-5 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: bip Updated Fedora Owners: arbiter,mcpierce
I don't see mcpierce in the cvsextras group. Have they been sponsored? Can you double check the name?
Kevin: I was sponsored by T Callaway.
It doesn't look that way. Or at least, the process is not complete because currently mcpierce is not yet in the cvsextras group. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/mcpierce
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: bip New Branches: epel7 Owners: bcl mcpierce mmahut
Git done (by process-git-requests).