Bug 972348 (actionlib)

Summary:	Review Request: ros-actionlib - Interface for pre-emptible tasks
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Rich Mattes <richmattes>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Christopher Meng <i>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	i, tim
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	i: fedora-review?
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2018-02-08 00:47:35 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:	927461, 972346
Bug Blocks:

Description Rich Mattes 2013-06-08 18:41:18 UTC

Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/actionlib/actionlib.spec
SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/actionlib/actionlib-1.8.7-1.20130605git3827384.fc19.src.rpm

Description: 
The actionlib package provides a standardized interface for interfacing with
preemptible tasks. Examples of this include moving the base to a target
location, performing a laser scan and returning the resulting point cloud,
detecting the handle of a door, etc.

Fedora Account System Username: rmattes

rpmlint:
$ rpmlint actionlib.spec ../../RPMS/x86_64/actionlib-*
actionlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pre -> per, ore, pee
actionlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emptible -> contemptible
actionlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preemptible -> preemptive
actionlib.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libactionlib.so libactionlib.so
actionlib.x86_64: W: no-documentation
actionlib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.

Comment 1 Tim Niemueller 2014-01-19 21:33:42 UTC

Should this package be called ros-actionlib? I would find it easier if ROS packages (especially core packages) had a common prefix.

Comment 2 Christopher Meng 2014-07-29 02:19:03 UTC

(In reply to Tim Niemueller from comment #1)
> Should this package be called ros-actionlib? I would find it easier if ROS
> packages (especially core packages) had a common prefix.

I think so.

Comment 3 Rich Mattes 2014-07-29 23:27:09 UTC

I don't think it's necessary.  I've been using a virtual provides for ros-%{name} with the other packages (e.g. catkin). I think it's might be better to leave it as actionlib and use the virtual provides for ros-actionlib to be consistent.