https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112474 --- Comment #25 from Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> --- (In reply to Cole Robinson from comment #22) > FWIW offthread I've also offered to sponsor jsnow, If you want to do the sponsoring in the end, that's fine with me, but I already started this review, so I might as well finish it :). > and be an implicit > co-maintainer (as part of virtmaint-sig), since this will eventually be a > qemu dependency That will work. (In reply to John Snow from comment #23) > (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #20) > > Some more comments: > > As I go, I'm > learning a lot about the tooling and process so please pardon the temporary > slowness. Don't worry! There's no time crunch here. > > 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. > > Understood! > (You called it an alpha package -- is that because you read my readme?) Yes, I did :). > Ah, I see. OK, I've mostly implemented your suggestion, but I did spell out > "python-qemu-qmp-doc" explicitly instead. > (No strong reason, I guess I liked the visual parity? Will change if > desired.) I'd prefer `%package doc` and `%files doc`. > Is it common to reproduce the same description for the doc package? I picked > a few at random and it didn't seem that way, but I did it anyway. I'm not really sure what's more common, but yes, that's what I'd recommend. > I then found this blurb concerning pypi_source on the packaging guidelines: > "For backward compatibility, the first argument is technically optional as > well, but omitting it is deprecated. (It defaults to %srcname if defined, or > to %pypi_name if defined, or to %name.)" Yes, that's a good point that I sometimes forget. `%{pypi_source qemu.qmp}` would be best here. > > > 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/ > > Understood. Currently, the TUI requires some packages that Fedora does not > yet package. What are the missing dependencies? At least looking at the tui extra, all three of those packages exist in Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. 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
