https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1515554 --- Comment #7 from Ed Marshall <esm@xxxxxxxxx> --- > In %install there is a comment about /usr/bin, but I don't see anything > about this location in %files section. Am I missing something? No, you're not missing anything, that's just boilerplate from pyp2rpm; in a package where a stub script would get installed in /usr/bin, the order of installation matters (the scripts from python2 will blow away the scripts from python3, and you have to take care to fix things up as-needed). That doesn't matter here, so I've yanked the text entirely. > %description is same as Summary. According to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description > it should expand on Summary. Not sure how important this is in practice. This is just reflecting upstream; they didn't feel the need to elaborate beyond a one-line summary, so I just duplicated %summary. I snagged some additional verbiage from __init__.py for %description, that should help. > Why are there exact versions listed in Requires and BuildRequires? > I think a comment explaining this would be useful. This is because the plugins are pinned upstream to the version of certbot they're released with, and this is a straight machine-translation from setup.py to an RPM spec. In a perfect world, I wouldn't be packaging this at all, and instead it would be packaged along with certbot itself; since that didn't end up happening (and because upstream's packaging doesn't make that even remotely easy anyway), we're here. ;) I'll toss a comment along those lines at the top of the spec, if you think it'll help clarify how these plugins relate to the parent project. I'll also switch this to use %{version} instead of a hard-coded value. > According to the packaging guidelines, separate -doc subpackage should be > created in case of large documentation. This is not the case here. > At the same time it makes sense not to duplicate the documentation > if both python2 and python3 versions of tha package are installed. > Not sure what is the right way here. It's not large, but packaging is basically free, and there's no harm in de-duplication (and in the real world, most people aren't going to bother installing the -doc subpackage, but will likely refer to the certbot help output and online resources, given what it is that you actually do with this package. ;) That said, however... > I don't see why fedora-review came up with "Note: Package contains font files". > Is it because of sphinx_rtd_theme required by the docs? > Maybe then there should be BuildRequires: python(3)-sphinx_rtd_theme ? No, it's legitimately including fonts directly in the -doc subpackage, because of how sphinx generates the docs. :P Blargh, I didn't even notice that. Hmm, looking over other python packages for examples of what they've done here seems to suggest that most people just kill off the -doc subpackage entirely rather than mess with it (including the certbot parent package itself, which includes the sphinx build dependencies and then never actually uses them ;)). Even python-acme, which appears to have done a fair bit of work to try and work out something sensible here, has just %if 0'd the whole section out. So, unless there's a strong objection, I'll just yank the doc generation entirely, and revisit this post-review when I'm able to find some better examples of how to deal with existing font resources and sphinx-generated docs, especially given that the parent package doesn't include sphinx documentation either. Will update in a few minutes. -- 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
