[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 Bug 1008063 depends on bug 1010479, which changed state. Bug 1010479 Summary: Binary name conflict with python-ase and the_silver_searcher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010479 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 knakayama knaka...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||knaka...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-01-27 09:09:55 --- Comment #38 from knakayama knaka...@redhat.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1057991 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #37 from Kenjiro Nakayama nakayamakenj...@gmail.com --- I updated spec file and upload them. Updated spec: http://diy-kenjiro.rhcloud.com/rpms/the_silver_searcher.spec Updated SRPM: http://diy-kenjiro.rhcloud.com/rpms/the_silver_searcher-0.18.1-1.20140118git.fc19.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6453244 * Changed following points. --- Summary:Super-fast text searching tool Changed clearly. Group: Applications/Text Added Group. %description The Silver Searcher is a code searcing tool similar to ack, with a focus on speed. Shortened by one sentence. I think this is enough. BuildRequires: bash-completion Simply added bash-completion to BuildRequires, since we don't need to consider rhel packaging. %clean Removed. ... And add some tiny changes. --- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #28 from Kenjiro Nakayama nakayamakenj...@gmail.com --- Thank you Dridi! Kenjiro, I consistently get the following error when I try to review your submission: What command are you using? In my environment(FC19), following command $ rpm2cpio the_silver_searcher-0.18.1-1.fc19.src.rpm | cpio -id can work. And can you please tell me your rpm version? (eg. rpm --version) Kenjiro -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #29 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Kenjiro Nakayama from comment #28) What command are you using? I'm simply running `fedora-review -b 1008063` See https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ for more information. It's a must-have for packagers :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #30 from Kenjiro Nakayama nakayamakenj...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #29) OK, Since $fedora-review --rpm-spec --name the_silver_searcher-0.18.1-1.fc19.src.rpm command works well, it is the BZ's url problem. Maybe this will work well. Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/nak3/8466841/raw/d84da196a9bd577e46e4eac52440d6d57c6e4b34/the_silver_searcher.spec SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/98rbxzx9yvq97ry/the_silver_searcher-0.18.1-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #31 from Kenjiro Nakayama nakayamakenj...@gmail.com --- (Additional comment for #30) Maybe this will work well. Sorry, does not work well too. Can you please download the SRPM and fedora-review it by following steps? step1. $ wget https://www.dropbox.com/s/98rbxzx9yvq97ry/the_silver_searcher-0.18.1-1.fc19.src.rpm step2. $ fedora-review --rpm-spec --name the_silver_searcher-0.18.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Sorry to put you to the trouble. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #32 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Henrik Hodne from comment #3) The binary conflict is a little trickier, I'll have to come up with a different name. I've noticed that ack (a similar program) uses ack-grep in some locations. Thanks to the fact this package uses the autotools, this issue is pretty simple to work-around: %configure --program-prefix=whatever- will install the program and its manpages with a prefix of whatever- e.g. %configure --program-prefix=the_silver_searcher- will install /usr/share/man/man1/the_silver_searcher-ag.1.gz /usr/bin/the_silver_searcher-ag Another issue with this package (MUSTFIX): Building is silent. It's impossible to check whether the compiler receives the correct CFLAGS from build.logs. Please append --disable-silent-rules to %configure -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063
--- Comment #33 from Henrik Hodne hen...@hodne.io ---
Nakayama-san,
I'm sorry, I was meaning to get back to this today. Feel free to take this.
Here's a quick unofficial review (there are a few [?]s for things I'm not sure
how to check or best evaluate).
The biggest issue seems to be that the tar.gz at the Source0 URL does not match
the package in the srpm. Looking at the diff output
(https://gist.github.com/henrikhodne/189794abe4a63490d143) it looks like the
package in the SRPM was generated from master, since it includes changes that
were committed upstream after 0.18.1 was released.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/henrikhodne/fedora-pkg-
review/the_silver_searcher/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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:
BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 23 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/henrikhodne/fedora-pkg-
review/the_silver_searcher/licensecheck.txt
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/bash-
completion(createrepo, bash-completion, rpmlint, yum, gvfs, glib2),
/usr/share/bash-completion/completions(createrepo, firewalld, bash-
completion, rpmlint, yum, gvfs, glib2)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[?]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: the_silver_searcher (description)
[-]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063
--- Comment #34 from Henrik Hodne hen...@hodne.io ---
Nakayama-san,
I'm sorry, I was meaning to get back to this today. Feel free to take this.
Here's a quick unofficial review (there are a few [?]s for things I'm not sure
how to check or best evaluate).
The biggest issue seems to be that the tar.gz at the Source0 URL does not match
the package in the srpm. Looking at the diff output
(https://gist.github.com/henrikhodne/189794abe4a63490d143) it looks like the
package in the SRPM was generated from master, since it includes changes that
were committed upstream after 0.18.1 was released.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/henrikhodne/fedora-pkg-
review/the_silver_searcher/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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:
BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 23 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/henrikhodne/fedora-pkg-
review/the_silver_searcher/licensecheck.txt
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/bash-
completion(createrepo, bash-completion, rpmlint, yum, gvfs, glib2),
/usr/share/bash-completion/completions(createrepo, firewalld, bash-
completion, rpmlint, yum, gvfs, glib2)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[?]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: the_silver_searcher (description)
[-]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #35 from Kenjiro Nakayama nakayamakenj...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #32) Another issue with this package (MUSTFIX): Building is silent. It's impossible to check whether the compiler receives the correct CFLAGS from build.logs. Please append --disable-silent-rules to %configure Thank you, Ralf. I updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #36 from Kenjiro Nakayama nakayamakenj...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Henrik Hodne from comment #33 and #34) Thank you Henrik, The biggest issue seems to be that the tar.gz at the Source0 URL does not match the package in the srpm. Looking at the diff output (https://gist.github.com/henrikhodne/189794abe4a63490d143) it looks like the package in the SRPM was generated from master, since it includes changes that were committed upstream after 0.18.1 was released. Yes, you're right, it's my mistake. I updated it to make snapshot package. The name of the SRPM package is changed too. Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/nak3/8466841 SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbyg7qwb2stj6g0/the_silver_searcher-0.18.1-1.20140118git.fc19.src.rpm Kenjiro -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #24 from Kenjiro Nakayama nakayamakenj...@gmail.com --- Since I want the_silver_searcher to include in the Fedora package ASAP, I update. I'm sorry if I am breaking a rule. Henriki, I have no intention of stealing your job. So if you want to continue, please tell me. FAS username: knak3 Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/nak3/8466841/raw/d84da196a9bd577e46e4eac52440d6d57c6e4b34/the_silver_searcher.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/nak3/tmp/blob/master/the_silver_searcher-srpm/the_silver_searcher-0.18.1-1.fc19.src.rpm?raw=true koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6417761 (Changed) * update to 0.18.1 * delete the lineIt searches code about 3–5× faster than ack. (comment #9, #11) Need any other fix? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #25 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- No matter who you are, you all need sponsors. Dridi doesn't have permissions to sponsor people, so the review mark should be lifted and be set by sponsors instead. But who is the sponsor? You all just want to submit the packages only. Kenjiro's spec needs fixes also. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 Kenjiro Nakayama nakayamakenj...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|nakayamakenj...@gmail.com | CC||nakayamakenj...@gmail.com --- Comment #26 from Kenjiro Nakayama nakayamakenj...@gmail.com --- You are right. I don't have the sponsor yet. I have to find someone. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #27 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- Christopher, you are right, I can review the package but not actually approve it. Kenjiro, I consistently get the following error when I try to review your submission: argument is not an RPM package cpio: premature end of archive WARNING: Cannot unpack 1008063-the_silver_searcher/srpm/the_silver_searcher-0.18.1-1.fc19.src.rpm into 1008063-the_silver_searcher/srpm-unpacked -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #23 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- Can you please update to the latest version ? 0.18.1 is available. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #22 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- The /usr/bin/ag file in python-ase is now known as /usr/bin/ase-gui thanks to bug 1010479, and the update is available on rawhide. We can resume this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 Henrik Hodne hen...@hodne.io changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rX9gmS8iepa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #1 from Henrik Hodne hen...@hodne.io --- Forgot rpmlint output: % rpmlint the_silver_searcher.spec ../SRPMS/the_silver_searcher-0.16-2.fc19.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/the_silver_searcher-0.16-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ack - ac, ck, sack the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ack - ac, ck, sack the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gitignore - git ignore, git-ignore, ignore the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hgignore - ignore the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo - rope, rep, reps the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US agignore - ignore the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extern - ex tern, ex-tern, external the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regex - regexp, reg ex, reg-ex the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US strstr - strut the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mmap - map, m map, mamma the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcre - pare, acre, pore the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jillion - gillion, million, pillion the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fnmatch - match the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ack - ac, ck, sack the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ack - ac, ck, sack the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gitignore - git ignore, git-ignore, ignore the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hgignore - ignore the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo - rope, rep, reps the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US agignore - ignore the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extern - ex tern, ex-tern, external the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regex - regexp, reg ex, reg-ex the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US strstr - strut the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mmap - map, m map, mamma the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcre - pare, acre, pore the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jillion - gillion, million, pillion the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fnmatch - match the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/bash_completion.d/ag.bashcomp.sh 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 27 warnings. All but one are “spelling errors” that aren't really spelling errors, and the missing noreplace flag is intentional as I don't think the bash completion file should be changed (I can be convinced otherwise, though). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OrQhHtEoYYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063
--- Comment #2 from Trond H. Amundsen t.h.amund...@usit.uio.no ---
Hello Henrik,
This isn't an official review. I've just taken a look and have a couple of
comments.
* You should specify man pages in the %files section as glob patterns such as
%{_mandir}/man1/ag.1*, to avoid errors when/if we change the man page
compression sometime in the future
* The binary RPM has a conflict: /usr/bin/ag is already provided by the package
python-ase (I've only checked on f19)
* The package name concerns me. I don't think underscores in package name is
strictly disallowed, but it's frowned upon and should be avoided.
-trond
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2UaEv21COra=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 --- Comment #3 from Henrik Hodne hen...@hodne.io --- Hello Trond, Thanks for the unofficial review! I chose the package name the_silver_searcher as that seems to be what is used in most other package managers. I see that Ubuntu and Debian uses silversearcher-ag, though, so I could change it to that. The binary conflict is a little trickier, I'll have to come up with a different name. I've noticed that ack (a similar program) uses ack-grep in some locations. I updated the man page %files in my local spec, but some errors showed up when attempting to rename the package (the Makefile is still installing some things to /usr/share/the_silver_searcher). I'll post links to a new spec and rpm file when I get that working. Thanks again, Henrik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FrKfX6R8C0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008063] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - A code-searching tool similar to ack, but faster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008063 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- While it's not part of the guidelines, please read http://mm3test.fedoraproject.org/hyperkitty/list/de...@mm3test.fedoraproject.org/thread/4PV7CQUQ2POT52EDMRUKZUKR4PEQYEG6/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=y9NZ8ZI8Lha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
