https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084 Cristian Le <fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(fedora@xxxxxxxxx) |needinfo?(zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #8 from Cristian Le <fedora@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the review. There are a few conflicting opinions I got from previous reviews. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #7) > - Ok, it would be nice to build the docs. For that you need the Github > archive. Could that be postponed to a later release? I have just switched it to `hatchling` [1] which should include the docs in the sdist, and if `m2r2` is just used to convert markdown to `rst`, I think it would be better to modernize it to use myst instead. > %global pypi_name click-option-group > %global pypi_name_with_underscore %(echo "%{pypi_name}" | sed "s/-/_/g") In a previous review on `scikit-build(-core)`, I was recommended to move away from macros like `%ppi_name` in order to make the spec file more readable. > %global _description %{expand: > click-option-group is a Click-extension package that adds option groups > missing > in Click.} I guess I line-breaked too late on this one? I did try to keep it within 80 characters and I thought the rpminspect is checking for that in the review. > # generate html docs > export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/ > sphinx-build-3 -b html docs/ html > # remove the sphinx-build-3 leftovers > rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo} Only generate and package html docs right? Btw, what about if the documentation has `inter-sphinx`, will it be able to link to the local documentation of the other documentation package? > %files -n python3-click-option-group -f %{pyproject_files} > %license LICENSE Not relevant yet, but the `%license` will be automatically constructed from the metadata provided by hatchling [2]. So in the case of: > %files -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc > %license LICENSE That would then have to be provided manually for this sub-package. Could the license be centralized in the main package instead? [1] https://github.com/click-contrib/click-option-group/blob/8118a76fd0321ac32a23684c586d6c3ce873f3c3/pyproject.toml#L1-L3 [2] https://github.com/packit/packit/pull/1913#discussion_r1163956946 -- 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=2233084 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233084%23c8 _______________________________________________ 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
