Spec URL: https://github.com/LecrisUT/atuin-rpmspec/raw/f63a0e4ad8e84cf1fd4533abacecf3fa353c4936/bash-preexec/bash-preexec.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/SriRamanujam-atuin-rpmspec-7/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07725265-bash-preexec/bash-preexec-0.5.0-1.20240710160126255333.pr7.32.g00b4fca.fc41.src.rpm Description: preexec and precmd hook functions for Bash 3.1+ in the style of Zsh. They aim to emulate the behavior as described for Zsh. Fedora Account System Username: lecris --- Soft dependency for `atuin`
Sorry I forgot to disable packit spec file fixes --- Spec URL: https://github.com/LecrisUT/atuin-rpmspec/raw/b6dea7b78a2d83165c8996c8593bc95092005706/bash-preexec/bash-preexec.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/SriRamanujam-atuin-rpmspec-7/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07725334-bash-preexec/bash-preexec-0.5.0-1.20240710160126255333.pr7.32.g00b4fca.fc41.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://github.com/LecrisUT/atuin-rpmspec/raw/b6dea7b78a2d83165c8996c8593bc95092005706/bash-preexec/bash-preexec.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/SriRamanujam-atuin-rpmspec-7/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07725334-bash-preexec/bash-preexec-0.5.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/SriRamanujam-atuin-rpmspec-7/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07725265-bash-preexec/bash-preexec-0.5.0-1.20240710160126255333.pr7.32.g00b4fca.fc41.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/SriRamanujam-atuin-rpmspec-7/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07725334-bash-preexec/bash-preexec-0.5.0-1.20240710160126255333.pr7.32.g00b4fca.fc41.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7726798 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2297308-bash-preexec/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07726798-bash-preexec/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bash-preexec/bash-preexec.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bash-preexec/bash-preexec-0.5.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Split the package so that bash-preexec is not sourced for all users by default, unless bash-preexec-all-users is installed. Also changed the return code for non-bash shells to 0.
Created attachment 2052490 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7726798 to 8150507
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8150507 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2297308-bash-preexec/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08150507-bash-preexec/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Hi, The review seems to be stalled. Is there still a will to bring bash-prexec to Fedora ?
Yes, very much needed in order to get out-of-the-box experience for atuin
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/bash-preexec/2297308-bash- preexec/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/bash-preexec [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/libexec/bash-preexec, /etc/profile.d [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4893 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: bash-preexec-0.5.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm bash-preexec-all-users-0.5.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm bash-preexec-0.5.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpus44mgej')] checks: 32, packages: 3 bash-preexec.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized preexec and precmd functions for Bash just like Zsh bash-preexec.src: W: summary-not-capitalized preexec and precmd functions for Bash just like Zsh bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized bash-preexec init script for all users bash-preexec.noarch: E: spelling-error ('precmd', 'Summary(en_US) precmd -> precede') bash-preexec.noarch: E: spelling-error ('precmd', '%description -l en_US precmd -> precede') bash-preexec.src: E: spelling-error ('precmd', 'Summary(en_US) precmd -> precede') bash-preexec.src: E: spelling-error ('precmd', '%description -l en_US precmd -> precede') bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: E: spelling-error ('init', 'Summary(en_US) init -> unit, int, nit') bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: E: spelling-error ('precmd', '%description -l en_US precmd -> precede') bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: E: spelling-error ('init', '%description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit') bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/bash-preexec.sh bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: W: no-documentation bash-preexec.spec: W: no-%build-section 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 6 warnings, 11 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized bash-preexec init script for all users bash-preexec.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized preexec and precmd functions for Bash just like Zsh bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: E: spelling-error ('init', 'Summary(en_US) init -> unit, int, nit') bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: E: spelling-error ('precmd', '%description -l en_US precmd -> precede') bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: E: spelling-error ('init', '%description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit') bash-preexec.noarch: E: spelling-error ('precmd', 'Summary(en_US) precmd -> precede') bash-preexec.noarch: E: spelling-error ('precmd', '%description -l en_US precmd -> precede') bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/bash-preexec.sh bash-preexec-all-users.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rcaloras/bash-preexec/archive/refs/tags/0.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 23c589cd1da209c0598f92fac8d81bb11632ba1b2e68ccaf4ad2c4f3204b877c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 23c589cd1da209c0598f92fac8d81bb11632ba1b2e68ccaf4ad2c4f3204b877c Requires -------- bash-preexec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bash-preexec-all-users (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bash-preexec Provides -------- bash-preexec: bash-preexec bash-preexec-all-users: bash-preexec-all-users Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/bash-preexec/2297308-bash-preexec/srpm/bash-preexec.spec 2025-07-06 13:10:55.975333600 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/bash-preexec/2297308-bash-preexec/srpm-unpacked/bash-preexec.spec 2024-10-17 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: bash-preexec Version: 0.5.0 @@ -66,4 +76,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog - +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu Oct 17 2024 John Doe <packager> - 0.5.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2297308 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, C/C++, Java, fonts, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) How do you ensure no other packages that use `DEBUG` or `PROMPT_COMMAND` are not installed? Ideally this should be listed in the spec file and a conflicts section added. b) Can the directories be co-owned, expect would need to add %dir %{_libexecdir}/bash-preexec to files. The packages systemd, setup and nano-default-editor own /etc/profile.d
> b) Can the directories be co-owned, expect would need to add Indeed, I've add the owning of `%{_libexecdir}/bash-preexec`. For `profile.d`, do we need to co-own it? It is part of the default system, and it seems that there are other packages that own it that would make more sense. > a) How do you ensure no other packages that use `DEBUG` or `PROMPT_COMMAND` are not installed? Oh, good point. There is no standard, but I believe we can introduce a `Provides` and `Conflicts`, as shown in this talk [1]. I will add it as `bash(PROMPT_COMMAND)`, but the other packages that provide it would have to include it as well. I will open a ML thread to discuss this. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hPpKJMyD08
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bash-preexec/bash-preexec.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bash-preexec/bash-preexec-0.5.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Added Provides/Conflicts section and directory ownership Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134842432