Description of problem: The packageconfig file for fish uses /usr/local/ for a few variables Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): fish-3.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Read the package config file at /usr/share/pkgconfig/fish.pc 2. 3. Actual results: Contents are: prefix=/usr datadir=/usr/share completionsdir=/usr/local/share/fish/vendor_completions.d functionsdir=/usr/local/share/fish/vendor_functions.d confdir=/usr/local/share/fish/vendor_conf.d Name: fish Description: fish, the friendly interactive shell URL: https://fishshell.com/ Version: 3.1.2 Expected results: Should use /usr/share everywhere, not /usr/local/share Additional info: NA
Hi! I've just pushed and built a new version to rawhide => fish-3.1.2-5.fc34 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50139697 Can you please check? KR, Oliver
Hi Oliver, I'm afraid I don't have a rawhide system, so I cannot install the package to check the package config file. Could you please use one of the test systems to check the package? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers (I *think* these are still usable, even with the data centre move ongoing). Cheers, Ankur
Hi! No need to check this explicitly on a Rawhide machine. A local rebuild my some other Fedora machine: # for i in prefix datadir completionsdir functionsdir confdir; do echo -n "$i: "; pkg-config --variable $i fish; done prefix: /usr datadir: /usr/share completionsdir: /usr/share/fish/vendor_completions.d functionsdir: /usr/share/fish/vendor_functions.d confdir: /usr/share/fish/vendor_conf.d So, from my point of view, this is fixed. The question is if we should also move this fix to f32 and f31. I hope the primary maintainer can chime in on this.
Thanks, I don't use fish, but I *think* those variables look correct now. The primary issue was the use of `/usr/local`, which isn't used any more. I think it's worth pushing the update to F32 and F31 too, since other packages that use the fish package config variables otherwise need to workaround the bug separately in those branches.
Igor, what do you think. F32 + F31 as well for that? If you don't have the bandwidth at the moment, let me know and I can handle it. Oliver
Agreed with Igor, I'll take care about F31 + 32! Oliver
Almost missed epel-8. :-\ Anyway. Fixed in: - Rawhide - F32 - F33 - EPEL-8 Builds are done or in progress. Therefore putting this on RELEASE_PENDING.
EL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1602288 F31: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1602285 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1602282 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1602341 Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1600803
FEDORA-2020-95b468e8a3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-95b468e8a3
Positive karma appreciated: - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3165619eda - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-dbf27f4f92 - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-95b468e8a3 - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6eb2d3837b
FEDORA-2020-95b468e8a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-95b468e8a3` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-95b468e8a3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-95b468e8a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.