Bug 175980

Summary:	Review Request: w3c-libwww
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	David Cantrell <dcantrell>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Warren Togami <wtogami>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-extras-list, pertusus
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-01-29 20:21:14 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	171491

Description David Cantrell 2005-12-16 21:37:45 UTC

Spec Name or Url: http://people.redhat.com/dcantrel/extras/w3c-libwww.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://people.redhat.com/dcantrel/extras/w3c-libwww-5.4.0-1.src.rpm
Description: Libwww is a general-purpose Web API written in C for Unix and Windows (Win32). With a highly extensible and layered API, it can accommodate many different types of applications including clients, robots, etc. The purpose of libwww is to provide a highly optimized HTTP sample implementation as well as other Internet protocols and to serve as a testbed for protocol experiments. Libwww also supports HTTPS, through OpenSSL.

Comment 1 Patrice Dumas 2006-01-19 22:13:46 UTC

w3c-libwww has also been submitted as bug 178310.

The other submitted w3c-libwww seems to me to be in better shape, as it has some
important patches allready, it uses macros better and the separation of apps in
a subpackage seems right to me. In fact the other seems to be derived from the
fedora core package while this one isn't. However, this one was the first to be
submitted so it should be the one considered. Maybe you could get in touch with
the submitter of the other bug or restart from the spec file in the other bug,
or get the good ideas from the other submission?

Comment 2 David Cantrell 2006-01-23 21:31:44 UTC

The other package was originally in Extras and it only makes sense for that one
to go back in to Extras.  No sense in recreating the wheel if it's already been
done.

Go ahead and add the one mentioned in bug 178310.

Thanks.

Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2006-01-29 20:21:14 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 178310 ***