https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255 --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks Karolina for the detailed review. I'm here with just a few nit picks, nothing is critical: 1. Have you considered using this patch definition? Patch1: https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.path/pull/1.patch Or is the patch manually rebased? I find this beneficial, because the reader knows the patch is identical to this PR if this is the case. If you'd like to both use this AND have a nicer filename, you can do: Patch1: https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.path/pull/1.patch#/better-filename.patch (However I don't find it particularly useful, by using the URL you communicate "this patch is PR#1".) 2. Have you considered having a nicer source filename? E.g. this: Source0: https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.path/archive/v%{version}/jaraco.path-%{version}.tar.gz This is useful when somebody works with this package in standard rpmbuild source directories (i.e. outside of dist-git), where all the sources are in one directory and v%{version}.tar.gz might clash with another package. 3. What is the benefit of defining the %pkg_name and %pypi_name macros? I find the spec file harder to read and it is not likely the values would change with time (unlike e.g. %version). IMHO it is much simpler if the values are used explicitly (especially since there are two different names used here). 4. The comment in %check seem pretty much copy-pasted from the referenced bugzilla. I'd change "if upstream sets https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/reference.html#confval-norecursedirs ..." with something like "jaraco.path redefines norecursedirs without `.*`" -- the bugzilla text tries to explain a situation in general terms, but this is a specific package, so we can afford being more specific -- and hence shorter and easier to understand. Whoever want's to know the details can visit the referenced bugzilla. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
