[Bug 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-05-25 19:18:46



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127
Bug 1295127 depends on bug 1294781, which changed state.

Bug 1294781 Summary: New version available, please approve ACL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294781

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande  ---
BuildRequires:  python-devel <--

Please, use python2-devel

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #6)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #4)
> > > Thanks Andrea,
> > > just few comments now and then tomorrow morning I'll work on the spec 
> > > itself.
> > > 
> > > 1. Ok, I'll do this way, thanks
> > > 
> > > 2. This package does not provide any library, only binaries so (as for
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin,
> > > "If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether
> > > they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, 
> > > t/var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/resulthen only one version of the
> > > executable should be packaged.") I think only one version should be 
> > > packaged
> > > 
> > > 3. See point 2
> > 
> > I'm not totally sure; I'm not a Python expert, but I see awcli file in
> > /usr/bin as is made with your package contains a Python3 shebang (indeed,
> > your package builds only a Python3 awscli in Fedora).
> > 
> > When you will split awscli in python2-awscli and python3-awscli, it will
> > need two different awscli in /usr/bin, one for Python2 and one for Python3.
> 
> This would never happens as for specifics.
> If you think about it, there a multiple softwares like ansible, dnf and so
> on that are written in python and could (potentially) be compiled as py2 and
> py3 binaries, but it does not mak any sense from a Fedora infrastructure
> since the user can care less if the program that is using is executed by py2
> or py3 (and probably does not know and care if it is a python, perl, c,
> assemply program as well).
> As for the package naming, it's the same case. In fact the ansible package
> is called simply "ansible" (and not python2-ansible) as well as dnf is "dnf"
> (and not python3-dnf), yum is "yum" (and not python2-yum) and so one.
> 

Therefore do you prefer to use only a Python3 AWSCLI on Fedora and only Python2
AWSCLI on rhel6/7?

Did you noted that DNF (you taken DNF as reference) is split in Python2/3 and
makes a symbolic link of unversioned '/usr/bin/dnf' respectively to dnf-2
(python2) and dnf-3 (python3)?
It's use Python2 DNF on Fedora<23 and Python3 DNF on Fedora>=23 but provides a
'dnf' package and 'python2-dnf' + 'python3-dnf' required sub-packages anyway.

> > > 
> > > 4. Technically, AWSCLI does not require bash nor zsh so they should not 
> > > be a
> > > dependency. Those helpers are used only if AWSCLI is used with BASH or 
> > > ZSH.
> > > This is a common thing in fact even if you do not have zsh installed (as 
> > > in
> > > my computer) that folder is present
> > > 
> > 
> > They may be packaged separately so, as 'awscli-bash-completion' and
> > 'awscli-zsh'.
> 
> If you take the dnf package as an example
> (pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/dnf.git/tree/dnf.spec) they just
> recommended the installation of bash-completion in line 84. Other packages
> (like fedpkg
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/fedpkg.git/tree/fedpkg.spec) don't
> bother of recommend any bash-completion line.
> Now, I don't know what would be the best way to approach this (it's my first
> time with this those bash completion things and I have not found any
> documentation) so I would think that the DNF approach is the more "safe"
> since a recommend is not a hard requirement but it's still a notice.
> 

You can manage them at your discretion; in my opinion, you can package them
separately. See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #9 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #8)
> (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #4)
> > > > 2. This package does not provide any library, only binaries so (as for
> > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin,
> > > > "If the executables provide the same functionality independent of 
> > > > whether
> > > > they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, 
> > > > t/var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/resulthen only one version of the
> > > > executable should be packaged.") I think only one version should be 
> > > > packaged
> > > > 
> > > > 3. See point 2
> > > 
> > > I'm not totally sure; I'm not a Python expert, but I see awcli file in
> > > /usr/bin as is made with your package contains a Python3 shebang (indeed,
> > > your package builds only a Python3 awscli in Fedora).
> > > 
> > > When you will split awscli in python2-awscli and python3-awscli, it will
> > > need two different awscli in /usr/bin, one for Python2 and one for 
> > > Python3.
> > 
> > This would never happens as for specifics.
> > If you think about it, there a multiple softwares like ansible, dnf and so
> > on that are written in python and could (potentially) be compiled as py2 and
> > py3 binaries, but it does not mak any sense from a Fedora infrastructure
> > since the user can care less if the program that is using is executed by py2
> > or py3 (and probably does not know and care if it is a python, perl, c,
> > assemply program as well).
> > As for the package naming, it's the same case. In fact the ansible package
> > is called simply "ansible" (and not python2-ansible) as well as dnf is "dnf"
> > (and not python3-dnf), yum is "yum" (and not python2-yum) and so one.
> > 
> 
> Therefore do you prefer to use only a Python3 AWSCLI on Fedora and only
> Python2 AWSCLI on rhel6/7?

Yes

> Did you noted that DNF (you taken DNF as reference) is split in Python2/3
> and makes a symbolic link of unversioned '/usr/bin/dnf' respectively to
> dnf-2 (python2) and dnf-3 (python3)?
> It's use Python2 DNF on Fedora<23 and Python3 DNF on Fedora>=23 but provides
> a 'dnf' package and 'python2-dnf' + 'python3-dnf' required sub-packages
> anyway.

True, from what I read from the mailinglist
(https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2014-December/010360.html)
the DNF thing is mainling caused by compatibility reasons needed by the fact
that dnf entered Fedora before there was the policy change. Since awscli has
never been in Fedora I think the legacy approach would not be necessary.

> > > > 
> > > > 4. Technically, AWSCLI does not require bash nor zsh so they should not 
> > > > be a
> > > > dependency. Those helpers are used only if AWSCLI is used with BASH or 
> > > > ZSH.
> > > > This is a common thing in fact even if you do not have zsh installed 
> > > > (as in
> > > > my computer) that folder is present
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > They may be packaged separately so, as 'awscli-bash-completion' and
> > > 'awscli-zsh'.
> > 
> > If you take the dnf package as an example
> > (pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/dnf.git/tree/dnf.spec) they just
> > recommended the installation of bash-completion in line 84. Other packages
> > (like fedpkg
> > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/fedpkg.git/tree/fedpkg.spec) don't
> > bother of recommend any bash-completion line.
> > Now, I don't know what would be the best way to approach this (it's my first
> > time with this those bash completion things and I have not found any
> > documentation) so I would think that the DNF approach is the more "safe"
> > since a recommend is not a hard requirement but it's still a notice.
> > 
> 
> You can manage them at your discretion; in my opinion, you can package them
> separately. See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies

Thanks for the link :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/awscli

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #11 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Thanks for the suggestions :)

I've made a new version:

Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/aws/awscli.spec
SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/aws/awscli-1.9.17-2.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Antonio Trande  ---
Please, use macro %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share.

Package approved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #15 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Thanks :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande  ---
- topictags.py file is licensed with a MIT license.
  Please, update License tag.

- /usr/share/zsh/site-functions and /usr/share/zsh are directories already
  owned by 'zsh'. Since zsh is a recommended package, they can be co-owned
  by this package too.

  %dir /usr/share/zsh
  %dir /usr/share/zsh/site-functions

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated".
 862 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/FedoraReview/1295127-awscli/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
 /usr/lib/python3.5
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages, /usr/share/zsh/site-functions, /usr/lib/python3.5,
 /usr/share/zsh
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: 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 %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

[Bug 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande  ---
- Defining py2_build/py2_install macros on rhel is not need; you can use
expanded form in all builds.

- python?-packages are not defined. See how is written an example SPEC file: 
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file

- See also how to avoid collisions between the python 2 and python 3 stacks

- Use macro as much as possible:

/usr/share/bash-completion/completions -->
%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions

- ??
%if 0%{?fedora}
BuildRequires: bash-completion
%endif # Fedora

In this way, bash-completion will be installed only on Fedora and it's not
necessary for building, but as Requires package I think.

Like so 'zsh' is a Requires package because you install 'aws_zsh_completer.sh'
in '/usr/share/zsh/site-functions'.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #7 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
In the mean time, I prepared an updated version with the first bullet solved
and the last upstream version:

Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/aws/awscli.spec
SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/aws/awscli-1.9.17-1.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Thanks Andrea,
just few comments now and then tomorrow morning I'll work on the spec itself.

1. Ok, I'll do this way, thanks

2. This package does not provide any library, only binaries so (as for
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin, "If
the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether they are
run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, then only one version of the executable
should be packaged.") I think only one version should be packaged

3. See point 2

4. Technically, AWSCLI does not require bash nor zsh so they should not be a
dependency. Those helpers are used only if AWSCLI is used with BASH or ZSH.
This is a common thing in fact even if you do not have zsh installed (as in my
computer) that folder is present

Thanks a lot,
Fabio

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #6 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #5)
> (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #4)
> > Thanks Andrea,
> > just few comments now and then tomorrow morning I'll work on the spec 
> > itself.
> > 
> > 1. Ok, I'll do this way, thanks
> > 
> > 2. This package does not provide any library, only binaries so (as for
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin,
> > "If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether
> > they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, 
> > t/var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/resulthen only one version of the
> > executable should be packaged.") I think only one version should be packaged
> > 
> > 3. See point 2
> 
> I'm not totally sure; I'm not a Python expert, but I see awcli file in
> /usr/bin as is made with your package contains a Python3 shebang (indeed,
> your package builds only a Python3 awscli in Fedora).
> 
> When you will split awscli in python2-awscli and python3-awscli, it will
> need two different awscli in /usr/bin, one for Python2 and one for Python3.

This would never happens as for specifics.
If you think about it, there a multiple softwares like ansible, dnf and so on
that are written in python and could (potentially) be compiled as py2 and py3
binaries, but it does not mak any sense from a Fedora infrastructure since the
user can care less if the program that is using is executed by py2 or py3 (and
probably does not know and care if it is a python, perl, c, assemply program as
well).
As for the package naming, it's the same case. In fact the ansible package is
called simply "ansible" (and not python2-ansible) as well as dnf is "dnf" (and
not python3-dnf), yum is "yum" (and not python2-yum) and so one.

> > 
> > 4. Technically, AWSCLI does not require bash nor zsh so they should not be a
> > dependency. Those helpers are used only if AWSCLI is used with BASH or ZSH.
> > This is a common thing in fact even if you do not have zsh installed (as in
> > my computer) that folder is present
> > 
> 
> They may be packaged separately so, as 'awscli-bash-completion' and
> 'awscli-zsh'.

If you take the dnf package as an example
(pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/dnf.git/tree/dnf.spec) they just recommended
the installation of bash-completion in line 84. Other packages (like fedpkg
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/fedpkg.git/tree/fedpkg.spec) don't
bother of recommend any bash-completion line.
Now, I don't know what would be the best way to approach this (it's my first
time with this those bash completion things and I have not found any
documentation) so I would think that the DNF approach is the more "safe" since
a recommend is not a hard requirement but it's still a notice.

Thanks a lot

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #4)
> Thanks Andrea,
> just few comments now and then tomorrow morning I'll work on the spec itself.
> 
> 1. Ok, I'll do this way, thanks
> 
> 2. This package does not provide any library, only binaries so (as for
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin,
> "If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether
> they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, then only one version of the
> executable should be packaged.") I think only one version should be packaged
> 
> 3. See point 2

I'm not totally sure; I'm not a Python expert, but I see awcli file in /usr/bin
as is made with your package contains a Python3 shebang (indeed, your package
builds only a Python3 awscli in Fedora).

When you will split awscli in python2-awscli and python3-awscli, it will need
two different awscli in /usr/bin, one for Python2 and one for Python3.

> 
> 4. Technically, AWSCLI does not require bash nor zsh so they should not be a
> dependency. Those helpers are used only if AWSCLI is used with BASH or ZSH.
> This is a common thing in fact even if you do not have zsh installed (as in
> my computer) that folder is present
> 

They may be packaged separately so, as 'awscli-bash-completion' and
'awscli-zsh'.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #2 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
New version available:

Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/aws/awscli.spec
SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/aws/awscli-1.9.16-1.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1294781




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294781
[Bug 1294781] New version available, please approve ACL
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1295128




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295128
[Bug 1295128] Review Request: aws-shell - AWS Shell
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127



--- Comment #1 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
I'm aware of the existance of #1123402 but it has been dead for almost a year.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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