Spec URL: http://stingr.net/r/xapply/xapply.spec SRPM URL: http://stingr.net/r/xapply/xapply-3.4-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: 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[1]: 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. :-) [1]: ftp://ftp.physics.purdue.edu/pub/pundits/index.html
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. ? rpmlint xapply-debuginfo.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/src/debug/xapply-3.4/x apply-3.4/bin/xapply/xapply.m mkcmd 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: %{_mandir}/man1/* 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 3e5a6a01c7fc1c27b1ec68fd607563ba0400f3cb xapply-3.4.tgz 3e5a6a01c7fc1c27b1ec68fd607563ba0400f3cb xapply-3.4.tgz.spec ef87e01d407b8e1919fe0099bb53a8bca5475bec msrc0-0.7.tgz ef87e01d407b8e1919fe0099bb53a8bca5475bec msrc0-0.7.tgz.spec 33342afc845db84a040f116202b880d37b9f626f mkcmd-8.14.tgz 33342afc845db84a040f116202b880d37b9f626f mkcmd-8.14.tgz.spec ok koji build with correct buildreq http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2158029 ok excludearch - locale files - ldconfig ok no bundling ok owns, dirs and perms and only once ok macros 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 ok trans ok testing - 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.
ping?
Sorry. 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 :)