Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 447533
Review Request: minirpc - an RPC library for stream oriented transports
Last modified: 2008-10-07 13:49:25 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agoode/fedora/minirpc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agoode/fedora/minirpc-0.3-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: miniRPC is a RPC library designed with modern systems in mind. It has a simple wire protocol to allow for future interoperability with other languages and systems.
I suggest addint INSTALL='install -p' to the make install line to
keep header file timestamps.
Given that the date appears in doxygen generated files, you could
have a look at
to avoid conflicts in multilib settings.
Everyting else looks good.
(In reply to comment #1)
> I suggest addint INSTALL='install -p' to the make install line to
> keep header file timestamps.
I could do this, but it doesn't seem to matter with multilib. Plus, one of the
headers is a generated file anyway, so the timestamps don't mean much. Is there
a reason for doing this?
> Given that the date appears in doxygen generated files, you could
> have a look at
> to avoid conflicts in multilib settings.
Ok, I have fixed this:
(In reply to comment #2)
> I could do this, but it doesn't seem to matter with multilib. Plus, one of the
> headers is a generated file anyway, so the timestamps don't mean much. Is
> a reason for doing this?
For the file which is not generated the timestamp is an interesting
information in any case.
For the generated file, it does matter if you install both arch and
do a rpm -V.
there is also some simple related hints on
But since the doxygen files are generated too, I won't make it a
The timestamps could be kept with (untested):
touch -c -r minirpc/minirpc.h.in minirpc/minirpc.h
touch -r CHANGES doc/html/*
(In reply to comment #3)
> > Is there a reason for doing this?
No there isn't.
> For the file which is not generated the timestamp is an interesting
> information in any case.
The time-stamps are technically completely irrelevant in the vast majority of
cases (like yours) - Some people refuse to understand this.
Anyway these are not blockers, only suggestions, so
* rpmlint is silent
* follow guidelines
* free software license included
* match upstream:
* %files section right
* library properly packaged
I don't think it is useful to duplicate the README/CHANGES/COPYING
files in the -devel subpackage since it depends on the main package
and these files are already in the main package. I also won't make it
Thanks for the review. I think your other suggestions are good, I will try to
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: minirpc
Short Description: RPC library for stream transports
Branches: F-7 F-8 F-9
Cvsextras Commits: yes
Package Change Request
Package Name: minirpc
New Branches: EL-5