https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409654 --- Comment #2 from Tadej Janež <tadej.j@xxxxxx> --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1) > any reason not to take archive from github? Hmm... I thought GitHub Releases page only contained git tags so I chose to use the release on PyPI to follow [1]: "If the upstream does create tarballs you should use them as tarballs provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages." I see now that the same zip source archive is also hosted on GitHub. I guess both, PyPI and GitHub, are equivalent now or you think GitHub should be preferred? > Not sure how it analyzing it, but I think that you should provide binaries > for both py2 and py3. What are the arguments for providing binaries for both versions of Python? The Packaging Guidelines for Python says: "If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, then only the Python 3 version of the executable should be packaged." [2] I think pydocstyle running on Python 3 will happily check Python 2 source code docstrings. BTW, are you volunteering for a review ;-)? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx