[Bug 1871171] Review Request: python-rpi-gpio2 - A libgpiod compatibility layer for the RPi.GPIO API

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871171



--- Comment #29 from Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> ---
I'm looking at this with fresh eyes and more packaging experience, so
apologizes that I'm pointing things out that I didn't before:

Consider using following the new Python Packaging Guidelines[1] and the new
pyproject macros. Particularly, look at the example specfile[2]. I use this for
all of my packages, except if I'm planning to branch them for epel7 and/or
epel8. Note that the old macros and the old Python Packaging Guidelines[3] are
still valid.

[1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
[2]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_empty_spec_file
[3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_201x/

> rm -rf %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/tests
> rm -rf %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/examples

This indicates a problem with your setup.py/setup.cfg configuration. You should
fix this upstream so it doesn't include these directories as `packages`, but I
won't block the review on it.

> # python-RPi-GPIO.spec

This seems unnecessary to me, but meh.

> %global pkgname rpi-gpio2
> %global pypi_name RPi.GPIO2

I do not like having all of these *name macros. They make the specfile harder
to read. I'd suggest using the the the actual values in the appropriate places,
instead.

```
%check
%py3_check_import RPi


# the tests rely on  the presence of the actual physical GPIO pins on the
system for now and though we may develop emulation functionality to run the
tests on any system in the future we think the software is ready to be packaged
as-is and we will just update it when the better tests are done

```

Please put the %check block below %install.

> Recommends: python-%{pkgname}-doc

I'd recommend against this. Having the main package pull in the doc subpackage
kind of negates the point of having that in the first place.

> License: GPLv3+

Fedora now has new licensing guidelines and uses SPDX license identifiers. This
should be `GPL-3.0-or-later.


-- 
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=1871171
_______________________________________________
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




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

  Powered by Linux