Bug 1200038

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #564537 +++

Spec URL: http://supervacuo.com/fedora/grc.spec
SRPM URL: http://supervacuo.com/fedora/grc-1.3-0.1.fc12.svac.src.rpm
Description: Generic Colouriser is yet another colouriser for beautifying your logfiles or
output of commands.

grc is a simple python-based log colouriser, which is packaged (by the upstream author) in Ubuntu/Debian, but no rpm apparently exists. The license is slightly unclear, but I have assumed GPLv2 on the basis of 
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/grc/grc_1.3/grc.copyright (which doesn't appear to be in the normal grc tarball).

--- Additional comment from Terje Røsten on 2010-02-13 07:52:24 EST ---

Some comments:


Release:        0.1%{?dist}.svac
Why so uncommon release tag, what't wrong with 1%{?dist}?

%build

- Add a comment about why %build in empty.

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_builddir}/grc-1.3/install.sh %{_builddir}/grc-1.3/ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

- %install will cd into source dir, you should use:
  ./install.sh  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 I don't understand why you need the build patch, (which is a install patch:-)

--- Additional comment from Carl van Tonder on 2010-02-13 08:45:30 EST ---

Spec URL: http://supervacuo.com/fedora/grc.spec
SRPM URL: http://supervacuo.com/fedora/grc-1.3-0.2.fc12.src.rpm

> Why so uncommon release tag, what't wrong with 1%{?dist}?
It started life as a "personal use" package; fixed

> Add a comment about why %build in empty.
Done; it's because there is no "compilation" step — grc and grcat are python scripts

> %install will cd into source dir, you should use:
> ./install.sh  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> I don't understand why you need the build patch, (which is a install patch:-)
For some reason, specifying relative paths seemed not to work yesterday, but now it does indeed work. Patch now removed.

Thanks for taking a look!

--- Additional comment from Terje Røsten on 2010-02-14 17:02:29 EST ---

Release:       	0.2%{?dist}

Why still leading 0 in release tag, is 1.3.0 a beta release?

You have to escape the macro in changelog:

%install -> %%install

--- Additional comment from Carl van Tonder on 2010-02-15 16:45:07 EST ---

Spec URL: http://supervacuo.com/fedora/grc.spec
SRPM URL: http://supervacuo.com/fedora/grc-1.3-1.fc12.src.rpm

Updated to fix issues described.

--- Additional comment from Fabian Affolter on 2010-07-02 16:51:39 EDT ---

Some quick comments:

- The source code contains a man page. The rpm is missing that man page.
- There is a mixed use of spaces and tabs.
- Please have a lot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
- Please get in touch with upstream about the license.

--- Additional comment from Fabian Affolter on 2010-11-17 06:47:18 EST ---

Any updates here?

--- Additional comment from Carl van Tonder on 2011-01-14 10:31:09 EST ---

I'm working on the issues described in comment 5; apologies for the delay. Fabian, is there any chance you could point out which parts of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python you feel I've missed?

--- Additional comment from Carl van Tonder on 2011-11-19 15:08:35 EST ---

Finally had some time to revisit this. New package:

Spec URL: http://supervacuo.com/fedora/grc.spec
SRPM URL: http://supervacuo.com/fedora/grc-1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #5) 
> - The source code contains a man page. The rpm is missing that man page.
Man pages now included

> - There is a mixed use of spaces and tabs.
Fixed.

> - Please have a lot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
I've read it thoroughly, and I'm not sure it's relevant. Although grc is written in Python, it is not (yet?) implemented as a Python module: it does not need to know where python_sitelib is, or do any byte-compilation. My interpretation is therefore that no changes are needed: I'd appreciate your advice if this is not so.

> - Please get in touch with upstream about the license.
COPYING is now also correctly included. The license is GPLv2 with some additions: one of them is that it can be re-licensed under any licence fulfilling Debian's guidelines. Should I leave it as-is, or change it to GPL?

I've also updated to the latest upstream release, and am bypassing the included `install.sh` because it does not include all necessary files, anyway.

--- Additional comment from Fabian Affolter on 2012-03-04 17:28:51 EST ---

(In reply to comment #8)
> > - Please have a lot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
> I've read it thoroughly, and I'm not sure it's relevant. Although grc is
> written in Python, it is not (yet?) implemented as a Python module: it does not
> need to know where python_sitelib is, or do any byte-compilation. My
> interpretation is therefore that no changes are needed: I'd appreciate your
> advice if this is not so.

Sorry, it seams that I messed up two review requests.

--- Additional comment from Terje Røsten on 2013-11-24 08:27:25 EST ---

Hi Carl,

still interest in this package? 

There is 1.5 release available upstream.

Are you sponsored?

@Buland,
are you going to start the review any time soon?

--- Additional comment from Christopher Meng on 2013-11-24 23:50:15 EST ---

WARNING!

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/grc

--- Additional comment from Carl van Tonder on 2013-11-27 12:31:27 EST ---

Terje, thanks for asking. I think I should back away from this package for the following reasons:

* other packages like ccze are available in the repos and I can't really see features that grc adds (I wanted it because I was coming from Ubuntu and didn't want to rewrite my bash aliases...)

* as Christopher Meng notes, there's a name clash with the GNU Radio GUI -- I don't see an easy way of resolving this

* I don't know how to go about byte-compiling the Python scripts in the spec.. if that's indeed required (I also don't know how to tell if it is!)

If anyone can advise on the name or packaging issue, though, I am happy to finish off the job just for the sake of completeness.