https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891646 --- Comment #4 from Scott Talbert <swt@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Scott Talbert from comment #3) > (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) > > Should the license be (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and (GPLv3+ with exceptions) to avoid > > ambiguity? > > Yes. Good point. > > > I'd call it python3-sip5. Not sipbuild, but sip, because the Python package > > is called sip. Consider at least providing it (via %py_provides > > python3-sip5). > > The source and binary package or just the binary package? I can see an > argument for that. After bikeshedding about it more in my head, I think I'll leave it named sip5 (source and binary), but add a provide for python3-sip5. My reasoning: sip v5 is a Python bindings generator that happens to also be written in Python. (sip v4 was written in C.) There is also a runtime Python module piece - in sip4 this is built as part of the sip package, but in sip v5, the runtime module is supposed to be generated as part of the binding generation (and thus should be packaged with the package for which the bindings are being generated, e.g., wxPython). -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
