Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
Summary: Merge Review: ctags Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: than@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: ctags
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/ctags/ Initial Owner: than@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ctags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |terjeros@phys.ntnu.no Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-07-02 16:13 EST ------- + rpmlint W: ctags summary-ended-with-dot A C programming language indexing and/or cross-reference tool. E: ctags tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: ctags non-utf8-spec-file ctags.spec W: ctags summary-ended-with-dot A C programming language indexing and/or cross-reference tool. E: ctags tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: ctags-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog
Comment: * fix utf-8 with iconv(1) * Both Summary and description should be reworked, they don't match the package as of today.
+ naming : ok
+ guidelines * changelog is 10 years old (sic!), could be a be shorter? * disttag is missing * source url is wrong, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-e27982f18a3bfd26b5b6e... * I prefer this buildroot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) * add %{?_smp_mflags} to make * preserve timestamp on man files (cp -p/install -p) * don't use %makeinstall
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0... * don't shiop INSTALL the rest seems ok.
+ License: ok + American English: ok, however as noted the summary and description is outdated and should be fixed. + legible: ok + src: md54sum: 9026a6c6950751bc4fd1be37e8a2070f : ok + build: ok (with correct build opts) + buildreq: ok + dirs and dups: ok + I prefer %defattr(...) as %defattr(-, root, root, -) + clean: ok + debuginfo: ok Then a issue maybe outside the scope of this review, I really like to see etags enabled and included. Perhaps in a ctags-etags subpackage like this:
%package etags Summary: Exuberant Ctags for emacs tag format Group: Development/Tools Requires: ctags = %{version}-%{release} %description This package will generate tags in a format which GNU Emacs understand, it's a alternativ implementation of the GNU etags program. Note: some command line options is not compatible with GNU etags.
Then change %configure line to include --enable-etags .
There are several other /usr/bin/etags coming from emacs and xemacs, hence you must use alternatives to setup /usr/bin/etags.ctags as alternativ. I can help with the details if you want, it goes something like this:
move files (after install):
mv /usr/bin/etags to /usr/bin/etags.ctags mv /usr/share/man/man1/etags.1 /usr/share/man/man1/etags.ctags.1
set up alternatives with slave (in %post and %preun):
alternatives --install /usr/bin/etags etags /usr/bin/etags.ctags 20 \ --slave /usr/share/man/man1/etags.1.gz etags-etagsman /usr/share/man/man1/etags.ctags.1.gz
alternatives --remove etags /usr/bin/etags.ctags
With low prio as 20, xemacs and emacs should ne affected. and included the files with
%files etags %defattr(-, root, root, -) %doc COPYING %{_bindir}/etags.ctags %{_mandir}/man1/etags*
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ctags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2008-01-14 15:36 EST ------- ping?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ctags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
than@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?
------- Additional Comments From than@redhat.com 2008-02-15 11:26 EST -------
Comment:
- fix utf-8 with iconv(1)
fixed
- Both Summary and description should be reworked, they don't match the
package as of today.
what is the problem here? could you please give more infos?
- guidelines
- changelog is 10 years old (sic!), could be a be shorter?
the old changelog should be remained
- disttag is missing
it's fixed
- source url is wrong, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-e27982f18a3bfd26b5b6e...
it's fixed
- I prefer this buildroot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
i prefer %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- add %{?_smp_mflags} to make
fixed
- preserve timestamp on man files (cp -p/install -p)
fixed
- don't use %makeinstall
fixed
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0...
- don't shiop INSTALL
the rest seems ok.
fixed
- License: ok
- American English: ok, however as noted the summary and description is
outdated and should be fixed.
any idea how to fix it?
Then a issue maybe outside the scope of this review, I really like to see etags enabled and included. Perhaps in a ctags-etags subpackage like this:
it doesn't make sense to add redundant etags here. wont fix
i built new ctags-5.7 in rawhide. could you please check again. Thanks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ctags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW Flag|needinfo? |
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2008-02-15 15:57 EST ------- ( > * Both Summary and description should be reworked, they don't match the
package as of today.
what is the problem here? could you please give more infos?
The summary and description only talks about C code, however ctags now supports a lot of program languages:
http://ctags.sourceforge.net/languages.html
This fact should be stated in the summary and description, from the the website.
Something along the lines of the rpm from the website maybe:
Summary:
Exuberant Ctags - a multi-language source code indexing tool
Desc:
Exuberant Ctags generates an index (or tag) file of language objects found in source files for many popular programming languages. This index makes it easy for text editors and other tools to locate the indexed items. Exuberant Ctags improves on traditional ctags because of its multilanguage support, its ability for the user to define new languages searched by regular expressions, and its ability to generate emacs-style TAGS files.
Install ctags if you are going to use your system for programming.
the old changelog should be remained
Ok.
i prefer %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Fine.
- License: ok
The guidelines has changed since the initial review, the license is in fact not valid, please have a look at this issue.
- American English: ok, however as noted the summary and description is
outdated and should be fixed.
any idea how to fix it?
See over?
Then a issue maybe outside the scope of this review, I really like to see etags enabled and included. Perhaps in a ctags-etags subpackage like this:
it doesn't make sense to add redundant etags here. wont fix
I don't see the problem in including a ctags-etags subpackage for users that will swap GNU Emacs / XEmacs etags for Exuberant Ctags etags.
I have created a ctags package with a ctags-etags subpackage. The correct alternatives commands are used. A patch is included as attachment.
Please reconsider for inclusion.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ctags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2008-02-15 16:00 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=295038) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=295038&action=view) patch to ctags.spec to include ctage-etags package.
patch for comment #4.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ctags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
debarshi.ray@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(than@redhat.com)
------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@gmail.com 2008-07-26 04:17 EST ------- Ping?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ctags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
than@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|needinfo?(than@redhat.com) |
------- Additional Comments From than@redhat.com 2008-07-29 11:42 EST ------- it's fixed in rawhide. thanks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2008-08-14 09:51:09 EDT --- Terje: Did you intend to approve this ticket? It's closed but fedora-review is still set to '?'.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
--- Comment #9 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2008-09-01 14:51:08 EDT --- Seems like all issues are fixed now (etags subpackage and license).
The Summary and Description texts can be improved, however the package can be approved as is.
But as you say tibbs, I don't know why the packager closed the ticket before the package was approved.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org