[Bug 2235084] Review Request: python-typecode - Comprehensive filetype and mimetype detection

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235084

Sandro <gui1ty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(gui1ty@penguinpee |
                   |.nl)                        |



--- Comment #8 from Sandro <gui1ty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #6)
> >1. PyPI vs. GitHub
> >
> 
> Pypi tarball rarely haves docs or tests, Githb have them.

True. That's why I prefer GitHub sources myself. But I also submit PRs upstream
to get that fixed. It's usually a packaging error. Tests and docs should be
included in the sdist, but not the wheel.

> >You are getting the source from GitHub. Is the PyPI tarball not usable?
> >Since pulling from GitHub, did you consider using forge macros? It makes the Source URL more readable and saves you from having to construct it yourself.
> 
> Forge macros are largely unmaintained and generally not recommended. Some
> woek is being done to streamline them.

Not anymore. Maxwell has done an excellent job reviving them:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Revitalize_Forge_Macros

But it's not a requirement, more a matter of personal preference. In my opinion
it makes spec files more readable, if nothing else.

> >[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> >
> >=> When installing the doc subpackage, no license files are installed. One solution is to make it require the main package.
> 
> They literally are:
> 
> %files -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc
> %doc html
> %license NOTICE apache-2.0.LICENSE

My mistake. They are indeed.

> Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-typecode.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-typecode-30.0.1-1.fc39.
> src.rpm

The package no longer builds using `fedora-review -b 2235084`, while it did
build before just fine. The only significant change I can see in the spec file,
that might be relevant:

 %generate_buildrequires
-%pyproject_buildrequires -t
+%pyproject_buildrequires

Since that actually skips tox requirements, I'm surprised it no longer builds.
The error message in `build.log` is:

No matching package to install:
'python3dist(typecode-libmagic-system-provided)'

Could you enable `fedora-review` in your Copr repo and rebuild the package,
please?


-- 
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=2235084

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202235084%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




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

  Powered by Linux