Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
Summary: Review Request: sippy - B2BUA SIP call controlling component Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lemenkov@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/sippy.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/sippy-0-1.20080515cvs.fc9.src.rpm Description: The B2BUA is a SIP call controlling component. Unlike a SIP proxy server, which only maintains transaction state, the B2BUA maintains complete call state and participates in all call requests. For this reason it can perform number of functions that are not possible to implement using SIP proxy, such as for example accurate call accounting, pre-paid rating and billing, fail over call routing etc. Unlike PBX-type solutions such as Asterisk for example, the B2BUA doesn't perform any media relaying or processing, therefore it doesn't introduce any additional packet loss, delay or jitter into the media path.
Few remarks:
* This is not a B2BUA itself, but rather a library for creating ones (two examples included). * This package still not released as tarball * I'm in doubts about naming scheme. Although it looks ugly but we use python-foo naming scheme, so maybe I should rename it to python-sippy? * I placed working examples into %docs/examples (and therefore raising rpmling warnings) but maybe I must place them into %bindir or %sbindir?
Every comments and suggestions will be highly appreciated.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sippy - B2BUA SIP call controlling component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@math.uh.edu
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2008-06-29 15:37 EST ------- This did not build for me:
Processing files: sippy-0-1.20080515cvs.fc10 Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38465 error: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/sippy-0-1.20080515cvs.fc10-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/*
and later: Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/sippy-0-1.20080515cvs.fc10-root-mockbuild error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sippy-0.0-py2.5.egg-info /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sippy/CCEvents.py /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sippy/CCEvents.pyc and so on, for every installed file.
Looks like you're using sitearch when you should be using sitelib, since this is a noarch package. I can't imagine that this package could ever actually build, but somehow you got rpmlint output.
As you currently have things, this is just a python module and should be called python-sippy. Even if it has some scripts but is still mainly used as a module, I'd name it as a module. But if it's an application that happens to bundle modules for its own use, then name it after the application.
If you expect that the examples will actually need to be called by people during regular use then they should be in _bindir. Otherwise they should be packaged as documentation, and generally not be made executable. Although it's not really a problem (i.e. a review blocker) for them to be executable as long as they don't pull in dependencies that the package wouldn't have were they not executable.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sippy - B2BUA SIP call controlling component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-06-30 04:12 EST -------
I can't imagine that this package could ever actually build
...but it does :)
Thanks for hint with sitelib - I'll apply this and other suggestions.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: python-sippy - B2BUA SIP call controlling component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: sippy - |Review Request: python-sippy |B2BUA SIP call controlling |- B2BUA SIP call controlling |component |component
------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-06-30 05:23 EST -------
Looks like you're using sitearch when you should be using sitelib,
Fixed.
As you currently have things, this is just a python module and should be called
python-sippy.
Renamed.
If you expect that the examples will actually need to be called by people during
regular use then they should be in _bindir. Otherwise they should be packaged as documentation, and generally not be made executable.
Moved to %_bindir
New version:
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy-0-2.20080627cvs.fc9.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2008-12-06 21:50:27 EDT --- I'm sorry for not looking at this ticket in so many months. The review queue is just so long....
Unfortunately the package in comment 3 doesn't build for me:
Executing command: ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bs --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/python-sippy.spec'] error: %patch without corresponding "Patch:" tag
You have Patch0: but call %patch instead of %patch0. rpm these days doesn't permit that.
You can probably drop the BuildRequires conditional for Fedora 8; new branches for that release aren't accepted any longer so you only have to consider F-9 and newer.
If I fix the %patch problem, the package builds and rpmlint says: python-sippy.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-provides sippy You should essentially never use an unversioned Provides: like that, because it makes it impossible to bring back a package with that name. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplaci... for more information on how to rename packages.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-12-07 10:38:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
You have Patch0: but call %patch instead of %patch0. rpm these days doesn't permit that.
Fixed.
You can probably drop the BuildRequires conditional for Fedora 8; new branches for that release aren't accepted any longer so you only have to consider F-9 and newer.
Actually, I can't - I plan to submit this package for EPEL as well.
If I fix the %patch problem, the package builds and rpmlint says: python-sippy.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-provides sippy You should essentially never use an unversioned Provides: like that, because it makes it impossible to bring back a package with that name. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplaci... for more information on how to rename packages.
Fixed.
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy-0-3.20081202cvs.fc10.src.rpm
Koji scratchbuild:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=985384
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tibbs@math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2008-12-19 17:35:14 EDT --- Actually you most certainly can remove the conditional for %fedora >= 8; you will need a different conditional for EPEL, since %fedora isn't even defined there. (Unless you're assuming for some reason that anything not Fedora behaves a certain way, in which case RHEL6 will definitely surprise you.) Of course, you also always have the option of just not using the same spec in EPEL.
Since this is a prerelease, the Release: tag must be less than 1. Should be 0.3.20081202cvs%{?dist}
The %description doesn't seem to talk about this package at all; it just talks about what a B2BUA does. If it had a sentence such as "This module provides a B2BUA (bullhorn to beef unstructured accountancy)" at the beginning, it would make more sense. Also, you probably want to use the correct definition for "B2BUA", as I have no idea what it is.
* source files match upstream (manually verified) X package does not meet versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. X description needs a bit of work. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: sippy = 0-3.20081202cvs.fc11 python-sippy = 0-3.20081202cvs.fc11 = /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.6 python-twisted-core
* owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-04-09 11:33:50 EDT --- New package version:
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy-0-0.4.20090409cvs.fc10.src.rpm
* New cvs-snapshot, in which upstream satisfies some our wishes, so I was able to drop almost all patches and workarounds from this package. * Changed versioning scheme a little. * Changed description.
Koji scratchbuild for EL-5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1287562
Koji scratchbuild for F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1287566
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-04-16 16:05:09 EDT --- This failed to build for me on the current F11 snapshot.
Processing files: python-sippy-0-0.4.20090409cvs.fc11.noarch Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.pHzHPI error: File not found by glob: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-sippy-0-0.4.20090409cvs.fc11.x86_64/usr/bin/*.pyc error: File not found by glob: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-sippy-0-0.4.20090409cvs.fc11.x86_64/usr/bin/*.pyo
Looks like bug 182498 has been fixed. You'll need to touch those two files so that you can exclude them, or condititionalize the two exclude lines. I personally use the former approach.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #9 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-04-17 03:53:19 EDT --- Thanks! Fixed.
Koji scratchbuild for F-11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1303532
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy-0-0.6.20090409cvs.fc10.src.rpm
I also added missing "Requires:" - radiusclient-ng-utils.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-05-04 04:35:41 EDT --- New cvs snapshot - 20090429:
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy-0-0.7.20090429cvs.fc10.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-05-16 19:52:35 EDT --- OK, this does build on F11, rpmlint is clean, the versioning is proper and %description looks OK to me. However, you still have the conditional %if 0%{?fedora} >= 8 which will always be satisfied. Is there some reason you can't remove that? It will not help your epel builds, because %fedora is never defined there.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-05-17 08:37:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11)
OK, this does build on F11, rpmlint is clean, the versioning is proper and %description looks OK to me. However, you still have the conditional %if 0%{?fedora} >= 8 which will always be satisfied. Is there some reason you can't remove that? It will not help your epel builds, because %fedora is never defined there.
I just revised this spec-file and found that the requirement for python-setuptools is superfluous - I removed it (along with pkgconfig - another leftover)
Koji scratch builds for F-11 and EL-5
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1358724 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1358726
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy-0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc10.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-05-27 17:05:26 EDT --- OK, looks good to me.
APPROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-05-27 23:58:26 EDT --- Thanks!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: python-sippy Short Description: B2BUA (back-to-back user agent) SIP call controlling component Owners: peter Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: peter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-05-28 12:04:14 EDT --- CVS done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-28 13:21:16 EDT --- python-sippy-0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-sippy-0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc10
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-28 13:21:24 EDT --- python-sippy-0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-sippy-0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc11
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-29 22:27:51 EDT --- python-sippy-0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-sippy'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-5653
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-29 22:35:27 EDT --- python-sippy-0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-sippy'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-5692
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-15 22:08:48 EDT --- python-sippy-0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc11 Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-15 22:41:03 EDT --- python-sippy-0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc11 |0-0.8.20090429cvs.fc10
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org