https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824628 --- Comment #8 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #7) > One consideration for using PyPI for version number and download URL is that > 20120425 trumps 2.4.1, so shifting to the more normal release version would > require bumping up the epoch -- always a rather.. distasteful solution. And > I think the packaging guidelines require VCS tags to be in the release > field, not in the version. Arf missed this one indeed. Since the VCS tag should be in the release field rather than the version field, there will be no need to use an epoch (the package isn't in the package database yet). So all in all, I'd go for the PyPI Source0. > Another thing from my spec is the %check section -- upstream does not ship > any, but I figured it's a good sanity check to try and load every module > shipped in the package and see if anything breaks. Everything else is the > same -- though we could also drop the declaration of python_sitelib at the > top of the spec -- only needed on RHEL 5 per the Packaging:Python guidelines. Good catch as well, does not do any harm but isn't useful > As for the binary name -- any idea what would be better? %{_bindir}/qrcode > seems reasonable. I'm pretty sure gnuhealth does not call the binary > directly (just loads the library) so it shouldn't be affected. Then again, > 'yum search /usr/bin/qr' indicates that it's not currently in use by > anything in our standard repos. There is no conflict at the moment but I find the name rather unexplicit and better safe than sorry. I think qrcode is reasonable indeed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review