https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503175 --- Comment #11 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Aivar Annamaa from comment #10) > Thanks, Miro! > > I got rid of pypi_name, the -n option, extra slahs after buildroot (the > slash after %{_datadir} is required, right?) Yes. You can check with: $ rpm --eval '%{_datadir}' /usr/share > I also introduced > desktop-file-install. I also updated the version in changelog (forgot it > last time). Good catch > With `%{python3_sitelib}/thonny` rpmbuild gave me: > > Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files > /home/aivar/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/thonny-2.1.15-1.fc26.x86_64 > error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/PKG-INFO > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/SOURCES.txt > > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/ > dependency_links.txt > > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/entry_points. > txt > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/requires.txt > > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/top_level.txt > > I tried `%{python3_sitelib}/thonny*` instead, and it seemed to work fine. > Should I keep this? Sorry about that, I forgot egg-info. Whether you go with thorny* or something more sophisticated is up to you. Thorny* will continue the build even if something like thorny_tests will get packaged by accident. I'd go with: %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}/ %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/ Noticed the trailing slashes? I use them to make sure it's a directory. Using %{name} here, spo others can copy paste form your spec with minimum effort. However this works as well: %{python3_sitelib}/thonny/ %{python3_sitelib}/thonny-*.egg-info It's your call here. > > The changes are visible here: > https://bitbucket.org/plas/thonny-rpm/commits/ > 8e6565e3b387cde2402f296ea2f11d303582a724 I see "%autosetup %{name}-%{version}" - you should be able to go with just "%autosetup". > I now noticed that I've forgotten a licensing issue. The toolbar icons are > licensed with EPL, so I guess I need to change `License: MIT` to `License: > MIT and EPL`. Am I right? But what should I then do with the EPL license > text? (It is included in the upstream tarball in > LICENSES/ECLIPSE-ICONS-LICENSE.txt) Currently my `%license LICENSE.txt` > references the MIT license, which is the license for the code. I didn't find > clear answers from > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios I haven't looked at the licenses yet, but if what you say is correect, than I'd go with the following (notice the comment): # Code is MIT, icons are EPL License: MIT and EPL ... %license LICENSE.txt LICENSES/ECLIPSE-ICONS-LICENSE.txt -- 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
