https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460917 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > What about the name dist-git-client? Personally I have no problem with both rpkg-client and dist-git-client. May clime use what he likes best (even some other name) > Source0: rpkg-client-git-4.88886a6.tar.gz It is not docummented, how can we obtain this archive. In the first version of your spec file there was a # Source is created by: # git clone https://pagure.io/rpkg-client.git # cd rpkg-client # tito build --tgz if it is still valid, can you please put it back? > %package -n rpkg This will create a subpackage called 'rpkg' (not 'rpkg-client-rpkg') which I believe is still considered as name conflict. Can anyone confirm or deny that, please? Also with > %files -n rpkg and no %files section for the whole package means, that the rpkg-client RPM is not even built. I am sorry, I don't understand the whole rpkg subpackge idea, can you please clarify it for me? As I see it, the purpose of this package is to ship a single executable python script `%{_bindir}/rpkg` which imports `pyrpkg` and therefore it requires python2-rpkg. That's basically it. Why to use subpackages at all? Can't we have just a simple rpkg-client package which has the (Build)Requires and %files itself? I see that you want to stick to generating a RPM named 'rpkg' for some reason, but I don't understand why. Why is it better than RPM named 'rpkg-client'? -- 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
