https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433617 --- Comment #5 from Yatin Karel <ykarel@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Peter Oliver from comment #4) > Thanks for looking at this. > > (In reply to Yatin Karel from comment #3) > > Issues: > > - python2 subpackage contains Provides python3-*, it should provide python2 > > binary > > Fixed. > > > - %check can be corrected as > > https://github.com/amperser/proselint/issues/623 is fixed > > upstream > > It's fixed in the development branch, but has not yet been released to a > stable version. > Thanks, hmm it's not there in Tagged release: https://github.com/amperser/proselint/blob/v0.8.0/MANIFEST.in. > > - For consistency one BuildRequires/Requires per line. > > Fixed. > > > - Invalid souce URL > > The source URL seems to work for me. What trouble are you having? > I get 404 Not found for SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mavit/python-proselint/fedora-26-x86_64/00519081-python-proselint/python-proselint-0.8.0-1.fc26.src.rpm > > If proselint binary differs in functioning in python2/python3 it would be > > good you ship > > both proselint-2, proselint-3 and symlink proselint with proselint-2 or > > proselint-3. > > The functionality shouldn't differ, and I don't think anyone will reasonably > require both. > If the functionality not differs, it's Ok to keep one copy of binary. > > - Good to use versioned packages if available: python-setuptools --> > > python2-setuptools, > > same is for click, future, six > > There is still no python2-click in Fedora 24, but I have updated the others. > > > - To me it looks the invalid use of Suggests and Recommends, any reason for > > using them in > > spec file. > > What is it about them that looks invalid? It seems likely to me that anyone > installing the python module is likely to also want the command-line binary. > What i get from your spec is following: you are creating an extra package(proselint) that just contains binary for proselint, so users can install proselint(which requires python3-proselint). Is creating an extra package really required? If both packages are providing same functionality. Can't you ship both python2 and python3 with the binary? Also as per guidelines python packages should be prefixed with python[23]- If i understood something wrong can you share the purpose in what scenarios each package would be used for more clearity. > > - Correct rpmlint errors > > I discuss in comment #1 why I believe these errors are harmless. Hmm till it's merged upstream, you can add workaround in %prep by removing shebangs(using sed or anything else you prefer). -- 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
