Spec URL: http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SPECS/sipp.spec SRPM URL: http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SRPMS/sipp-1.0-0.src.rpm Description: SIPp is a free Open Source test tool / traffic generator for the SIP protocol. It includes a few basic SipStone user agent scenarios (UAC and UAS) and establishes and releases multiple calls with the INVITE and BYE methods. It can also reads custom XML scenario files describing from very simple to complex call flows. It features the dynamic display of statistics about running tests (call rate, round trip delay, and message statistics), periodic CSV statistics dumps, TCP and UDP over multiple sockets or multiplexed with retransmission management and dynamically adjustable call rates.
First of all, the RPM that you supplied needs to BR ncurses-devel or it won't build in mock. Second, is there are reason that you didn't package 1.1rc6? Version 1.0 is quite old and it looks like there is quite a long time between 1.1rc releases - almost six months between rc5 and rc6. I don't follow sipp development so I don't know why it's taking them so long to make a non-"rc" release.
Any updates?
Yes, there are some. First, I updated packate to version 1.1rc6. So far I faced the "correct numbering" problem - 1.1rc6 isn't a correct name. Should we name it in some different manner, for example 1.1-0.rc6.1? Another one thing worth to mention is a clause in LICENSE.txt. Looks like some part of package distributed covered by different license (BSD variant?). I added another two BR: openssl-devel and libpcap-devel (they're significantly increase functionality, for example digest authentication in scenarios). Another one add-on is patch which fixes this package's buildscripts. http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SPECS/sipp.spec http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SRPMS/sipp-1.1rc6-0.src.rpm
Version 1.1.rc8 http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SPECS/sipp.spec http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SRPMS/sipp-1.1-0.rc8.src.rpm changed naming scheme.
Peter, sorry it's taken so long to do this review: * source files match upstream 94bddbc6def599ed59c87fdd9edf5486 sipp-1.1rc8.src.tar.gz 94bddbc6def599ed59c87fdd9edf5486 sipp-1.1rc8.src.tar.gz.1 * package meets naming and packaging guidelines (except as noted below). * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. X compiler flags are not appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (fc6 i386). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent: * %check is not present; There is no test code in the districution. * no shared libraries are present * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers * no unversioned .so file * no pkconfig file * no libtool .la droppings. Suggestions: * Package README.txt, MEDIA.txt, and the contents of the pcap directory as %doc. Blockers: * The code is not built using the standard compiler flags. Modifying the build section to look like this will build the package with the proper flags: DEBUG_FLAGS="%{optflags}" %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} pcapplay_ossl The compile produces a lot of warning flags, but it completes and produces an executable. However, once I compiled sipp with the standard compiler flags the buffer overflow checking code is triggered when I run the following commands in separate windows (as a non-root user): sipp -sn uac -i 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 sipp -sn uas -i 127.0.0.1 That seems very bad to me... probably something to diecuss with the upstream authors.
> * Package README.txt, MEDIA.txt, and the contents of the pcap > directory as %doc. Done. I packaged pcap and its contents in %{_datadir}. > * The code is not built using the standard compiler flags. Modifying > the build section to look like this will build the package with the > proper flags: Done. http://lemenkov.googlepages.com/sipp.spec http://lemenkov.googlepages.com/sipp-2.0-1.src.rpm
Peter, thanks for hanging in with me. Ok, it's looking good, except for /usr/share/sipp is not owned anymore. Fix that up before you import and this package is APPROVED.
Done. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: sipp Short Description: SIP test tool / traffic generator Owners: lemenkov Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: lemenkov
CVS done, except that I can't quite understand why you'd want to be in initialcc if you're the owner so I left that field blank.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: sipp New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
added
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: sipp New Branches: epel7
Owner not specified.
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #13) > Owner not specified. Sorry! Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: sipp New Branches: epel7 Owners: peter
Git done (by process-git-requests).
sipp-3.3-6.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sipp-3.3-6.el7
sipp-3.3-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.