+++ 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.
Upstream development has recently resumed. I'd like to finish packaging this for Fedora. I've created a new package based on Carl's version: Spec: http://www.stack.nl/~snnw/generic-colouriser.spec SRPM: http://www.stack.nl/~snnw/generic-colouriser-1.7-1.fc21.src.rpm To address earlier concerns, I've done the following: * Renamed package to avoid confusion with GNU Radio GUI. It has since been removed from Fedora, so no naming conflict from the executables remains. * Byte-compiling the Python script does not seem necessary.
Please update to latest version 1.9 and I'll review it.
Spec and SRPM are refreshed for version 1.9. Spec: http://www.stack.nl/~snnw/generic-colouriser.spec SRPM: http://www.stack.nl/~snnw/generic-colouriser-1.9-1.fc22.src.rpm Thanks Pavel for taking a look.
Some quick comments. - BuildRoot: ..., %clean section, line %defattr(-,root,root,-) and line rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install are not needed, remove these - Use %license macro - Lines in %%description too long - Drop disttag from changelog, use: 1.9-1 This way you can use same spec file for all branches. - Add empty line between each changelog item.
Thanks for the comments, Terje. (In reply to Terje Røsten from comment #4) > Some quick comments. > > - BuildRoot: ..., %clean section, line %defattr(-,root,root,-) and line rm > -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install are not needed, remove these Removed the mentioned lines and sections. Thanks. > - Use %license macro COPYING is the license and has been marked as such. > - Lines in %%description too long The line was 79 characters long exactly, but I've made it shorter anyway. > - Drop disttag from changelog, use: 1.9-1 > This way you can use same spec file for all branches. Nice. > - Add empty line between each changelog item. Done. Is this a convention, or requirement? New links: Spec: http://www.stack.nl/~snnw/generic-colouriser.spec SRPM: http://www.stack.nl/~snnw/generic-colouriser-1.9-1.fc23.src.rpm
Thanks! BuildRoot can be removed too. Very minor: remove empty line between Summary and Group. All specs I have seen have empty line in between in changelog. Why is this needed: BuildRequires: python2-devel Is there any requires needed or are those automatic any way? Can you create a fedora account: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts and do a koji scratch build: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system?rd=PackageMaintainers/UsingKoji#Scratch_Builds
snnw's scratch build of generic-colouriser-1.9-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11956748
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.