[Bug 1288456] Review Request: python-recommonmark - docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456



--- Comment #10 from Julien Enselme <jujens@xxxxxxxxx> ---
> Possible you are right and it may be equal... Is not?

As far as I know it is equal. The package wouldn't pull python3-devel in the
other case. I just prefer to put every requires in the proper subpackage.

> You should also include %check section

Since there is no test, I don't think it is relevant. I can add an empty one,
but during another review, it was pointed out that I shouldn't do that.

> do not include license separate from upstream.

The license comes from the git upstream repository, so in my point of view it
comes from upstream. If the license is not included in the tarball I fetch it
from github if possible so the package contains a license provided but upstream
anyway. I was never told this is a bad practice, nor do I think it is.

> But it should be placed in python-recommonmark, nor python2-recommonmark nor python3-recommonmark.

I don't see where this is mentioned in the guideline. Placing it in the
python-recommonmark (ie for now in the python2-recommonmark package, since this
package provides python-recommonmark) would require to install the
python3-recommonmark package with the python2 one as the executable is built
for python3 and so will depends on files from
/usr/share/python3.x/site-packages. I don't think this is the best way to do
it.

-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]