Spec URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/fish_rpm_v4/fish.spec SRPM URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/fish_rpm_v4/fish-2.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: fish is a fully-equipped command line shell (like bash or zsh) that is smart and user-friendly. fish supports powerful features like syntax highlighting, autosuggestions, and tab completions that just work, with nothing to learn or configure. Fedora Account System Username: amluto See bug 974852.
Hi Matthias- I don't think I have permission to assign this to you, so I'm cc-ing you instead.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/fish See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 96 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mrunge/review/1041924-fish/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/fish(zeroinstall- injector), /usr/share/fish/completions(zeroinstall-injector) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 583680 bytes in 46 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3317760 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fish-2.1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm fish-2.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm fish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash fish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autosuggestions -> autosuggestion, auto suggestions, auto-suggestions fish.x86_64: E: call-to-mktemp /usr/bin/fish fish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash fish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autosuggestions -> autosuggestion, auto suggestions, auto-suggestions 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint fish fish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash fish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autosuggestions -> autosuggestion, auto suggestions, auto-suggestions fish.x86_64: E: call-to-mktemp /usr/bin/fish 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- fish (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/env config(fish) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) python rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- fish: config(fish) fish fish(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://fishshell.com/files/2.1.0/fish-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af527af9d145df5675ca3031c1a87007d4f4753a1cde49da88f4eb883a1cf044 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af527af9d145df5675ca3031c1a87007d4f4753a1cde49da88f4eb883a1cf044 Final remarks: - you should file a bug upstream about changed fsf address - I'd explicityl list files by name, but that's a matter of style and personal preference - I'd list build requirements each in an own line, not condensed in a single line This is a re-review to revive an orphaned package. Package approved, I'll sponsor you into the packager group.
ah yes, and since we're using RPM, we know where executables live. So there's no need to rely on /usr/bin/env, you should replace /usr/bin/env python calls by their direct replacement. The same applies to /usr/bin/env fish
Sigh ... parts of building this package don't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS and pass bogus compiler arguments: ... ... -I/usr/local/include ... g++ function.o builtin.o complete.o env.o exec.o expand.o highlight.o history.o kill.o parser.o proc.o reader.o sanity.o tokenizer.o wildcard.o wgetopt.o wutil.o input.o output.o intern.o env_universal.o env_universal_common.o input_common.o event.o signal.o io.o parse_util.o common.o screen.o path.o autoload.o parser_keywords.o iothread.o color.o postfork.o builtin_test.o fish.o -Wl,-z,relro -L/usr/local/lib/ -lncurses -lpthread -o fish ... 2 to 3 issues with this: * -I/usr/local/include and -L/usr/local/lib/ should not be passed to the compiler for various reasons. * The g++ call above doesn't receive the necessary RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
Ugh, good catch, Ralf. Thank you for pointing this out. Adny, could you please have a look?
I mean, Andy, please could you have a look?
I filed an upstream bug about the FSF address. The /usr/local/include thing is https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/1185 Re: the g++ call to link the executables: does it matter for linking? In any case, I patched it. For /usr/bin/env python: There are four Python scripts. One is not installed and AFAICT unused (AFAICT) and the other three are explicitly bilingual, so I switched them to /usr/bin/python3 instead of /usr/bin/python. rpm now finds the dependency on /usr/bin/python3, so I dropped Requires: python. I've tested all three scripts for basic functionality under Python 3. In the process of doing this, I found a test suite. It's in %check now. Spec URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/fish_rpm_v5/fish.spech SRPM URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/fish_rpm_v5/fish-2.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6288850
Just for the record: - The missing CXXFLAGS issue is fixed in upstream master. - Fedora 19 will suffer from https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/1065. I can patch it later or just wait for a new version (it's also fixes upstream). Fedora 20+ will be unaffected. - Upstream doesn't seem to care about the FSF's address: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/1184 - I should probably remove --without-xsel at some point. It's no longer necessary, and it has no effect. (Fish will detect xsel at runtime to enable clipboard functionality, as described in the docs.)
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #7) > Re: the g++ call to link the executables: does it matter for linking? In > any case, I patched it. Yes, it does. Linking will fail, when GCC requires one of the flags in RPM_OPT_FLAGS. A classic such case is picking up the correct multilibs to link against, because some cflags/cxxflags cause GCC to implicitly switch library-paths. E.g. building a package for i386 on an x86_64 requires GCC to be passed -m32, which would then cause GCC to implicitly link against i386-libraries instead of x86_64-libraries. In Fedora, this issue currently is hidden, because GCCs' default architectures (the architecture GCC uses without additional flags) matches those of the corresponding Fedora release. I.e. on Fedora-i386 GCC's default-arch is "i386", on Fedora-x86_64 it's x86_64. However, this is just random/lucky coincidence. In the past we've had situations where a Fedora's distribution arch did not match default arch of the corresponding GCC, and had required special CFLAGS (IIRC, this did apply on the sparc and the powerpc).
Matthias: all the issues are fixed, I think, in the latest version I posted here. Can you take a quick look and mark this as reviewed again?
Andy, then you'd need to upload a new srpm/spec. I just found a line: requires: python in the spec, which does not fit to the claim of using python3. I consider this at least as unfortunate, since we require python2 to be installed on every system, but python3 won't be automatically pulled in.
Are you looking at the right spec? Spec URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/fish_rpm_v5/fish.spech SRPM URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/fish_rpm_v5/fish-2.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6288850 (Am I supposed to bump the revision number on review versions? I couldn't find a good answer to that.)
To avoid further confusion: rpm is smart enough to pick up the dependency on /usr/bin/python3 from the patched #! lines in the python scripts.
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #12) > (Am I supposed to bump the revision number on review versions? I couldn't > find a good answer to that.) Yes. I am sure this is written somewhere in the fedora wiki. :-)
(In reply to José Matos from comment #14) > (In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #12) > > (Am I supposed to bump the revision number on review versions? I couldn't > > find a good answer to that.) > > Yes. > > I am sure this is written somewhere in the fedora wiki. :-) I will bump the revision if any new revisions are needed. Otherwise it seems silly to bump the revision for the sole purpose of bumping the revision. :) I looked around a bit and couldn't find it. Presumably it belongs in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process. Of course, I also can't figure out whether there's a process that needs to be done to edit the wiki or whether I should just edit it myself. (I'm duly impressed by the amount of attention that a fairly simple review request has gotten.)
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #15) > (In reply to José Matos from comment #14) > > (In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #12) > > > (Am I supposed to bump the revision number on review versions? > I will bump the revision if any new revisions are needed. Otherwise it > seems silly to bump the revision for the sole purpose of bumping the > revision. :) It is not silly. I helps reviewers and submitter to make sure to be looking into the correct packages. In other words, it helps avoiding issues similar this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041924#c12
Touché. It probably doesn't help that I misspelled the URL. Spec URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/fish-2.1.0-5_/fish.spec SRPM URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/fish-2.1.0-5_/fish-2.1.0-5.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6318497 (Pardon the extra _ in the URLs -- Akamai is currently caching a bogus version.) This is the same as last time, plus BR: python3, minus --without-xsel (which has no effect now), and with a better revision and changelog.
finally: APPROVED, I see issues fixed, although I still disagree on the use of python3 instead of python2.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: fish New Branches: f19 f20 Owners: amluto InitialCC: This is a request to unorphan fish, create f19 and f20 branches, and change the owner to me (amluto). Thanks!
I'll probably switch back to Python 2 before releasing this. I guess it's more than a bit early for Python 3 in the base install... Thanks, everyone!
Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5820
fish-2.1.0-6.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fish-2.1.0-6.fc19
fish-2.1.0-6.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fish-2.1.0-6.fc20
fish-2.1.0-6.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
fish-2.1.0-6.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
fish-2.1.0-6.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: fish New Branches: el7 Owners: luto ohaessler Oliver asked me if he could (co-)maintain an EPEL branch.
Duplicate