Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1394789
Summary: | Review Request: neovim - Vim-fork focused on extensibility and agility | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andreas Schneider <asn> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | asn, fszymanski, package-review, thib, yunying.sun |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jhrozek:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-12-15 23:30:52 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 1327160, 1327198, 1327218, 1394785, 1394788 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 1401414 |
Description
Andreas Schneider
2016-11-14 13:10:27 UTC
An informal review: 1. Group & BuildRoot tag should not be used, according to "Tags and Sections" at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines 2. File lists is quite long. If all files under a folder are included, is it enough to include the folder only? that is, use: %{_datadir}/nvim/runtime instead of: %dir %{_datadir}/nvim/runtime 3. Better to have rpmlint result and koji build link here. I'm having 2 new packages under review, bug 1369708 and 1369720. Would like a review-swap if possible. Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/neovim/neovim.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/neovim/neovim-0.1.6-2.fc24.src.rpm I've removed Group and BuildRoot. I prefer a complete file list, then I know what is going on. Which files get added and which have been removed. Koji is not possible, see the dependencies. We do not need lua-bitop it is a builtin of luajit which neovim uses. Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/neovim/neovim.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/neovim/neovim-0.1.7-1.fc25.src.rpm Scratch build failed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16716812 By the way jemalloc-devel build requires is missing. Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/neovim/neovim.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/neovim/neovim-0.1.7-2.fc25.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16754838 Use gettext instead of gettext-devel. Quick question. Do we need luajit-devel (we are using the Lua interpreter)? One more thing: BuildRequires: gcc C and C++ packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires This is simpler %build mkdir -p obj than %build if test ! -e "obj"; then mkdir obj fi Well luajit would be better, but luajit assumes lua 5.1: LuaJIT 2.0.4 -- Copyright (C) 2005-2015 Mike Pall. http://luajit.org/ JIT: ON CMOV SSE2 SSE3 SSE4.1 fold cse dce fwd dse narrow loop abc sink fuse > require("lpeg") stdin:1: module 'lpeg' not found: no field package.preload['lpeg'] no file './lpeg.lua' no file '/usr/share/luajit-2.0.4/lpeg.lua' no file '/usr/local/share/lua/5.1/lpeg.lua' no file '/usr/local/share/lua/5.1/lpeg/init.lua' no file '/usr/share/lua/5.1/lpeg.lua' no file '/usr/share/lua/5.1/lpeg/init.lua' no file './lpeg.so' no file '/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/lpeg.so' no file '/usr/lib64/lua/5.1/lpeg.so' no file '/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/loadall.so' So we need to use lua which is lua 5.3 and luajit seems to be incompatible. Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/neovim/neovim.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/neovim/neovim-0.1.7-3.fc25.src.rpm Looks good. I noticed something else. The license file is in %doc and should be in %license: %files %license LICENSE %doc ... I could swear I've already fixed that before ... Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/neovim/neovim.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/neovim/neovim-0.1.7-4.fc25.src.rpm Fedora-review says: Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Remove the gcc dependency and I'll approve :) "If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Those packages will include everything that is required to build a standards conforming C or C++ application." From: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#Packaging OK, strange that fedora-review explicitly flags gcc. I don't have any more comments, then. I was thinking of changing Recommends python{2,3}-neovim to Suggests. This way we get fewer dependencies (Python packages or only suggested not installed). They are not necessary to run neovim. What do you think guys? Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/neovim neovim-0.1.7-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b8f61d4abb neovim-0.1.7-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b8f61d4abb neovim-0.1.7-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. neovim-0.1.7-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |