https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255 --- Comment #8 from Tomáš Hrnčiar <thrnciar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > 1. Have you considered using this patch definition? That's a good idea, I will do it. > 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 Thanks, I wondered how to do it. I'll stick to 1.patch with full URL. > 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 I have to write this down :). I always struggle to use the correct GitHub URL's when working with archives. > 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). My spec file is based on the other jaraco packages and I was trying to be consistent. But since I used pyproject-rpm-macros this is probably the only "consistency" that left there so I'll just remove it. -- 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
