Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: st - A simple terminal implementation for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693363
Summary: Review Request: st - A simple terminal implementation for X Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: psabata@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
Spec URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/packages/st/st.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/packages/st/st-0.1.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: A simple virtual terminal emulator for X which sucks less.
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=693363
Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mmaslano@redhat.com
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=693363
Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-04-06 08:05:59 EDT --- - rpmlint OK - package must be named according to Guidelines OK - spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK - package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK - package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK - license field must match actual license OK - text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK - sources must match the upstream source OK - package MUST successfully compile and build OK - architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK - build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK - handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK - shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK - packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK - package must own all directories that it creates OK - permissions on files must be set properly OK - package must consistently use macros OK - package must contain code, or permissable content OK - large documentation must go in a -doc OK - %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK - header files must be in a -devel package OK - static libraries must be in a -static package OK - library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK - devel package usually require base package OK - packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK - GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
APPROVED
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=693363
Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #2 from Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com 2011-04-06 08:13:19 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: st Short Description: A simple terminal implementation for X Owners: psabata Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC:
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=693363
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs-
--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-06 14:10:13 EDT ---
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK
Erm, really? How did you actually check? I thought /usr/bin/st might be conflicting and indeed: repoquery --whatprovides /usr/bin/st shows that it is (openstack-swift provides that file already).
Arguably this is an issue in openstack-swift, but at this point it's no safe bet that any two-letter command is non-conflicting.
Please work this out and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag when that's been done.
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=693363
Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |silas@sewell.ch
--- Comment #4 from Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com 2011-04-07 04:19:39 EDT --- Marcela, thanks for the review.
Jason, thanks for noticing this. I've contacted openstack-swift owner. We'll see what could be done here.
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=693363
--- Comment #5 from David Nalley david@gnsa.us 2011-05-16 10:12:48 EDT --- Hi Petr:
Let me ping some of the upstream OpenStack-swift folks and get their input. I'll try and do that today.
I just reparsed: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts#Conflicting_Files
and that looks remarkably bleak. It appears from looking at version control that st pre-dates at least the open sourcing of swift, though I don't know what the reaction will be regardless.
Thanks,
David
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=693363
--- Comment #6 from Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com 2011-05-16 10:22:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
Hi Petr:
Let me ping some of the upstream OpenStack-swift folks and get their input. I'll try and do that today.
I just reparsed: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts#Conflicting_Files
and that looks remarkably bleak. It appears from looking at version control that st pre-dates at least the open sourcing of swift, though I don't know what the reaction will be regardless.
Thanks,
David
Thank you!
If that won't go well, we'll have to stick with 'Conflicts'.
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=693363
--- Comment #7 from David Nalley david@gnsa.us 2011-05-21 19:36:46 EDT --- So long story short Petr, Silas Sewell and I have exchanged a few emails, and I think from both Silas and I our POV is:
* hacking openstack-swift or st to have a different binary results in documentation not working, and fedora specific 'problems'
* st and openstack-swift are not very likely to both want to be on a single system at once.
So I think the conflicts idea works at least from the openstack-swift perspective.
My current plan wrt openstack-swift is to introduce this conflicts with openstack-swift 1.3.0, which may be a bit, there are some additional as-of-yet-unpackaged dependencies that need to be introduced to Fedora, so it won't be immediate, but certainly soon, though adding the conflicts to st should resolve the immediate issue I believe.
Thoughts, comments?? flames??
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=693363
--- Comment #8 from Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com 2011-05-23 02:16:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7)
So long story short Petr, Silas Sewell and I have exchanged a few emails, and I think from both Silas and I our POV is:
- hacking openstack-swift or st to have a different binary results in
documentation not working, and fedora specific 'problems'
- st and openstack-swift are not very likely to both want to be on a single
system at once.
So I think the conflicts idea works at least from the openstack-swift perspective.
My current plan wrt openstack-swift is to introduce this conflicts with openstack-swift 1.3.0, which may be a bit, there are some additional as-of-yet-unpackaged dependencies that need to be introduced to Fedora, so it won't be immediate, but certainly soon, though adding the conflicts to st should resolve the immediate issue I believe.
Thoughts, comments?? flames??
Thank you both!
As I see it, openstack-swift upstream don't want to change the binary name 'just because'. Well, we have to (or should) respect their decision.
I'm okay with mutual confict, just wanted some cleaner solution.
--
Updated spec and SRPM: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/packages/st/st.spec http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/packages/st/st-0.1.1-2.fc14.src.rpm -- --- a/st.spec +++ b/st.spec @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ BuildRequires: libX11-devel BuildRequires: ncurses BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils Requires: terminus-fonts +# /usr/bin/st, rhbz#693363 +Conflicts: openstack-swift
%description A simple virtual terminal emulator for X which sucks less. @@ -44,5 +46,8 @@ desktop-file-install --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications %{SOURCE1 %{_datadir}/applications
%changelog +* Mon May 23 2011 Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com - 0.1.1-2 +- We have a conflict with openstack-swift (#693363) + * Mon Apr 4 2011 Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com - 0.1.1-1 - Initial import
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=693363
--- Comment #9 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-05-23 02:33:57 EDT --- Conflicts should solve it, approved.
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=693363
Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com 2011-05-23 02:56:34 EDT --- Thanks, Marcela.
Setting fedora-cvs? flag again...
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=693363
--- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-05-23 13:42:08 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=693363
--- Comment #12 from Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com 2011-05-24 02:31:44 EDT --- Thanks, Jason.
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=693363
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=693363
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-24 02:43:47 EDT --- st-0.1.1-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/st-0.1.1-2.fc14
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=693363
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-24 02:44:37 EDT --- st-0.1.1-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/st-0.1.1-2.fc15
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=693363
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-24 22:54:37 EDT --- st-0.1.1-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository.
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=693363
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-30 18:27:37 EDT --- st-0.1.1-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
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=693363
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |st-0.1.1-2.fc15 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-05-30 18:27:43
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=693363
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-06-02 14:51:31 EDT --- st-0.1.1-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
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=693363
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|st-0.1.1-2.fc15 |st-0.1.1-2.fc14
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org