https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525570 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- As Miro said, please try harder to find if someone had already sent a review request. We probably would already have pew in Fedora had you just reviewed mine. (I submitted it more than a year ago!) I recommend this URL if you don't know it: https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ --- Now, to be honest, I'm happy to leave the package to someone else. I don't actually love packaging things (I've done too much of it I guess), I only do it when I need it. So if you want to maintain pew, please have at it. :) And I'm also happy to give you its dependencies, since I don't care about them outside of needing them for pew: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1385244&hide_resolved=0 --- If I may though, the way you split the *-completion packages is just unnecessarily annoying for users. Those files are fine to put in the main package, it provides a much better UX to have them installed with pew. In addition, those completion files aren't enough to make things work. You also need to source /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/pew/shell_config/init.$SHELL. But that file tries to source the completion file, so the latter ends up being sourced twice, which could lead to all sorts of undesired behaviours. I've talked about it with upstream there: https://github.com/berdario/pew/issues/142 (you'd have found that issue had you searched for the existing review request ;) ) My conclusion was that it's just easier to leave those files as they are, and rely on the upstream mechanism when launching pew for the first time. (it asks whether you want to source the appropriate file in your shell rc file) If you really want to install the completion files in the right places, then this would need some upstream work to drop init.$SHELL. You probably want to also `rm pew/shell_config/complete_deploy` in your %prep to fix the rpmlint issue (that script is completely unnecessary in the context of an RPM, see issue 142 upstream) I really think this should be named `pew`, not `python3-pew`, because this is primarily a cli application rather than a Python module. At the very least, if you want to stay with the `python3-pew` name, please make it provide `pew` to make it easier to install. Finally, what's up with bcond_without for the tests? Sure, I forgot to add the tests in my spec, it's great you added them. :) But what's the point of conditionally running them? That's not even possible in mock/Koji anyway. -- 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
