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 1438009 - zsh package is missing some modules
Summary: zsh package is missing some modules
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: zsh
Version: 25
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jason Tibbitts
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-03-31 15:36 UTC by Julien Nicoulaud
Modified: 2017-06-05 15:09 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version: zsh-5.2-6.fc25 zsh-5.3.1-4.fc26
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-04-09 21:51:25 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Julien Nicoulaud 2017-03-31 15:36:37 UTC 
Description of problem:
The zsh package in Fedora 25 is missing two modules (when comparing to an Arch Linux installation):
 - pcre
 - db/gdbm

This is especially noticeable for pcre, as the systemd completions try to load it and output errors when trying to use tab completion.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.2

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. zmodload zsh/pcre
2. zmodload zsh/db/gdbm

Actual results:
zsh: failed to load module `zsh/pcre': /usr/lib64/zsh/5.2/zsh/pcre.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
zsh: failed to load module `zsh/db/gdbm': /usr/lib64/zsh/5.2/zsh/db/gdbm.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Expected results:
no output

Additional info:
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2017-03-31 16:14:19 UTC 
Can reproduce, even on rawhide.  I suspect a couple of build dependencies will fix this up.  I'll have a look.
Comment 2 Jason Tibbitts 2017-03-31 17:29:15 UTC 
Fix pushed to rawhide currently.  This results in additional dependencies on pcre and gdbm, but those are needed variously by systemd and dnf so there is no effective dependency growth.

Can push to F26 as well, and backport to the F25 package, if the other maintainers agree.  I could also just update F25 to 5.3.1 as well, I guess, but that would be more disruptive.  What do you folks think?
Comment 3 Kamil Dudka 2017-03-31 19:06:08 UTC 
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #2)
> Fix pushed to rawhide currently.  This results in additional dependencies on
> pcre and gdbm, but those are needed variously by systemd and dnf so there is
> no effective dependency growth.

OK.  Thanks!

> Can push to F26 as well, and backport to the F25 package, if the other
> maintainers agree.

What exactly do you want to backport?  Just the spec file changes?

> I could also just update F25 to 5.3.1 as well, I guess,

Are you implying that the update is needed to make those modules work?

> but that would be more disruptive.  What do you folks think?

Please do not rebase zsh in stable releases of Fedora unless there is a good reason to do so.  It is known to cause problems.  See bug #1296692 comment #5.
Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2017-03-31 19:20:37 UTC 
I would backport just the small specfile changes needed to enable the modules.

I made no implication at all that an update to 5.3.1 is needed to enable those modules.  The only reason I mentioned it at all is that it would keep the branches from diverging, which for some maintainers is a concern.

I know all about the need to type "exec zsh" on shells which stay open across a package update.  I wouldn't have mentioned how disruptive that can be if I didn't understand the issue.
Comment 5 Kamil Dudka 2017-04-03 07:39:35 UTC 
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #4)
> I would backport just the small specfile changes needed to enable the
> modules.

Sounds reasonable.

> I made no implication at all that an update to 5.3.1 is needed to enable
> those modules.  The only reason I mentioned it at all is that it would keep
> the branches from diverging, which for some maintainers is a concern.

I prefer to make the packaging of zsh optimized for users, not for maintainers.

> I know all about the need to type "exec zsh" on shells which stay open
> across a package update.

In other words, you would have to drop all existing zsh sessions...
Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2017-04-03 22:32:10 UTC 
zsh-5.3.1-4.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b760b0e5e2
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-04-03 23:27:40 UTC 
zsh-5.2-6.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-aaf65ae1c0
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2017-04-04 22:23:03 UTC 
zsh-5.2-6.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-2017-aaf65ae1c0
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2017-04-04 23:52:16 UTC 
zsh-5.3.1-4.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-b760b0e5e2
Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2017-04-09 21:51:25 UTC 
zsh-5.2-6.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2017-04-10 16:00:08 UTC 
zsh-5.3.1-4.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 12 gustavo panizzo <gfa> 2017-06-05 12:16:01 UTC 
Hello

Can we get this backported to RHEL7? I have to use RHEL7 on my workstation and i'd appreciate if i can share my .zshrc with my Debian machines.

thanks!
Comment 13 Jason Tibbitts 2017-06-05 15:09:38 UTC 
Zsh is in base RHEL, not EPEL, so anything like that would have to go through the regular RHEL product support cycle.  I don't even have an RHEL subscription, much less any influence over what Red Hat does internally.  You should open a ticket using whatever support channel you have.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.