[Bug 1935255] Review Request: python-jaraco-path - cross platform hidden file detection

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux