Suggestion: Hello. The name of the component to customize the Bash Shell colour prompt varies depending on whether it is hosted on domains *.fedoraproject.org, as "shell-color-prompt" or on the Fedora infrastructure, as "bash-color-prompt". This is obviously a source of confusion. For the sake of consistency and coherence, wouldn't it have been better if the component name didn't vary? $ rpm -qi bash-color-prompt | grep -E '^URL|^Bug URL' URL : https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/shell-color-prompt Bug URL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/shell-color-prompt $ dnf rq --installed --qf 'v. %{version} | %{summary}' bash-color-prompt v. 0.4.1 | Color prompt for bash shell
Well it is simply the difference between the source and binary package names, so yea what can I say it is slightly confusing perhaps indeed. TBH I slightly regret renaming the source during the review process: the idea was that in the future other shells might also be supported, but it's complicated enough at least for bash that it is non-trivial to add and maintain more shells and the zsh ecosystem has a lot more support for customization anyway. I may leave just this open for some time, but I have no immediate plans to rename the source package anytime soon. Having said all that it there are many packages where the connection between the source and binary names is not self-evident. So yeah one has to check with `rpm -qi ...` etc. $ rpm -q --qf "%{SOURCERPM}\n" bash-color-prompt shell-color-prompt-0.4.2-1.fc41.src.rpm
Worth noting: On this platform, the description of this component is marked "NA", indicating that it was not yet defined. Again as a suggestion, wouldn't it have been better to have one defined?
(In reply to ricky.tigg from comment #2) > Worth noting: On this platform, the description of this component is marked > "NA", indicating that it was not yet defined. Again as a suggestion, > wouldn't it have been better to have one defined? Good catch, that might be my fault possibly: not sure how to fix that though.
I checked and indeed https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/55731 I guess this is actually a fbrnch bug/rfe ;-(
(Well one can also argue such repo requests should be rejected perhaps...)
Actually I am wrong - I don't think it is related to fbrnch. The request does have a Summary field, so I suspect maybe the repo request was not 100% processed correctly: this sometimes happens unfortunately, or the bz data is messed up perhaps. I will try to work with releng to rectify this later.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 42 development cycle. Changing version to 42.
I finally opened https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12888
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #8) > I finally opened https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12888 This has now been resolved by Release Engineering.