[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 #37 from Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> ---
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #35)
> Okay, I ran this through fedora-review. In addition to the comment about
> naming above, it uncovered a couple more small issues.

You still need to fix this.

>From comment 34:

> However, it seems the SRPM is named python-rpi-gpio2, while the python3 subpackage is named python3-RPi.GPIO2. It should also be named python3-rpi-gpio2.



> ==== Reviewer Notes ====
> > %package doc
> > Summary: Examples for python-rpi-gpio2
> > %description doc
> > A set of examples for python-rpi-gpio2
> 
> I would recommend adding a newline or two before %description to make the
> spec file more readable

Done, thanks!

> 
> The package obsoleting does not appear correct to me. Here is how I'd
> approach it:
> 
> > Obsoletes: python-rpi-gpio = %{version}-%{release}
> > Provides: python-rpi-gpio
> 
> These shouldn't be necessary. There is no binary package named
> python-rpi-gpio2.

Done.

> 
> > Obsoletes: python3-RPi.GPIO <= 0.7.1
> 
> The constraint should be "< 0.7.0-7". See
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-
> replacing-existing-packages.
> 
> > Provides: python3-RPi.GPIO = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> I would make this python3-RPI.GPIO = 1:%{version}-%{release}.
> 
> Normally, we try to avoid epochs, but this is necessary, as the latest
> version of rpi-gpio2 sorts before the last version of rpi-gpio.

Done. Thanks



Nitpick that you can choose to implement or not:

```
%description doc
A set of examples for python-rpi-gpio2
```

I'd include the main description here as well. Something like this would work:

```
%description doc %{_description}

A set of examples for python-rpi-gpio2
```

Besides the aforementioned naming issue and the %description nitpick, this
looks good to me. Please make sure to fix those issues and send a
self-introduction[1] to the devel mailing list

[1]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/#introduce_yourself


-- 
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