Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 568315
Review Request: xapply - Parallel Execution tool ala xargs/apply
Last modified: 2012-02-20 04:54:24 EST
Spec URL: http://stingr.net/r/xapply/xapply.spec
SRPM URL: http://stingr.net/r/xapply/xapply-3.4-1.fc12.src.rpm
xapply (Extended Apply) is an clever derivative of xargs and apply.
Using list or tabular input from one or more descriptors, xapply executes
a template command modified for each input. It supports simple split
on token expression, and has support (a la make -j) for running many
jobs in parallel.
He he, it would be wrong to ship this as executable:
This source code is published as reference documents only. This is an overview
of the code used to run various system admin functions by me (K S Braunsdorf).
It doesn't represent anything useful.
In fact it might be bad. I wouldn't recommend that you download it or run any
part of it. Just read it.
NetBSD ships it, FreeBSD ships it.
I understand that disclaimers may be scary - and the code itself is also scary - but it's actually useful. I know people who actually use it.
Sure, it was joke, Open Source is so serious and boring these days :-)
Ok, back to business.
I wonder if you should create separate packages for mkcmd and msrc0?
They are hardly used for anything besides building this one.
Actually, I was hoping for a long time that someone will be inspired by this utility and will actually rewrite it using slightly more modern approach to argument parsing etc. And I still hope that at some point it can be replaced with something commandline-compatible but much less ugly.
That's why it might make sense to keep the infestation contained.
I finally understood how to use the tool and it was in fact clever, thanks.
xapply-debuginfo.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/src/debug/xapply-3.4/x
xapply-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/src/debug/xapply-3.4/xapply-3.4/bin/xapply/xapply.m 0644 mkcmd
Can be ignored?
ok naming of package and spec
! spec file
use version macro in Source0 and %prep
add some comments in %build, a (future) new maintainer will be very
confused about that mess.
more explicit here please:
add some of the README/TODO files to %doc
! license approved and tag correct
I can't find any thing about license, where did you get BSD from?
ok license in %doc
ok correct language
ok sha1sum on sources and ok url
ok koji build with correct buildreq
- locale files
ok no bundling
ok owns, dirs and perms and only once
ok code or content
- large docs
ok %doc not affect the runtime
- headers|static in devel|static
- .so in devel
- devel dep on base
- no .la|.a file
- gui with desktop file
ok own just not owned
ok utf-8 file names
- scriptlets sane
- subpkgs dep on base
- pkgconfig(.pc) in devel
- req on package not on files
ok add man pages
Please have a look at the ! stuff above.
Expect an update this week :)
Very sorry for the delay. Will try to send an update this week for real.
Sorry for the delay, finally some progress.
I reuploaded the sources to http://stingray.fedorapeople.org/review/xapply/
What has been changed?
I really need some feedback on the license issue.
BTW: I can't access the ftp site any longer. Is there any alternative download site?
A year without feedback, closing ticket and adding dead review blocker.
Reopen if anyone wants to to continue.
This bug almost made me laugh :)