https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112474 --- Comment #20 from Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> --- Some more comments: > Cleber Rosa (upstream maintainer for avocado-framework) tells me that fedora:latest carries a stream wherein avocado is kept at the bleeding edge, but that a non-modular package cannot rely upon a modular one as a dep. Yup, the implementation of modularity is... not the best. > He is working on updating the normal package from Avocado LTS 82.0 to Avocado LTS 92.0, which will unblock me here. That major version bump will only be able to happen in branched (f37) and rawhide (f38) according to the Updates Policy[1]. [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ Keep in mind that you won't be able to push incompatible updates to this package in stable updates, either. Given that this is an alpha package, you'll have to take that into consideration. (people.redhat.com has an expired SSL cert. You might want to report that internally...) The specfile looks good for the most part. You need to include the license file and mark it with %license in %files for both subpackages. ``` %files -n python3-%{pkg_name} -f %{pyproject_files} %doc README.rst %license LICENSE LICENSE_GPL2 [...] %files -n python3-%{pkg_name}-doc %license LICENSE LICENSE_GPL2 %doc html ``` You should preserve the description for both subpackages and name the doc subpackage as `python-qemu-qmp-doc`. You can change ``` %package -n python3-%{pkg_name}-doc Summary: Documentation for %{pkg_name} %description -n python3-%{pkg_name}-doc Documentation for %{pkg_name} ``` to ``` %package doc Summary: Documentation for %{pkg_name} %description -n python3-%{pkg_name}-doc %_description This package provides documentation for python3-qemu-qmp. ``` You'll also need to change `%files -n python3-qemu-qmp-doc` to `%files doc`. More nitpicky comments: Consider removing *_name macros as discussed. > rm %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/qmp-tui I'm not a fan of this. Fedora packages should try to stay close to upstream projects[1], and this feels like a deviation from that. I'm happy to help you split it out into a subpackage if needed. However, if you still maintain that this shouldn't be packaged, I won't push hard on it. [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects/ -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112474 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
