https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244587 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) Thank you for reviewing this! > a) Can documentation be built? Sphinx can generate man pages, but if html > is built, indicate bundled javascript files. Packaging rst files is also > fine. There are more problems than bundled JavaScript. At minimum, there are also pre-minified JavaScript and CSS, and all kinds of issues with discarded license texts. Discussion in bug 2006555 and https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/. I don’t believe it’s practical to package Sphinx-generated HTML documentation in a way that withstands close scrutiny. The PDF form as built in the latest submission is “probably OK.” > b) Can examples also be packaged as documentation? +1 > c) Sources include an egg-info directory. Can this be removed in the prep > section? Why? It doesn’t do any harm. See bug 1825455, and in particular https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825455#c2. Note that metadata in an egg-info directory is not at all the same as the almost entirely historical “binary eggs” that fedora-review warns about, which would be like bundling wheels. ---- I see just ONE problem that *should* block the review: the -doc subpackage needs to include its own copy of the license file (“%license LICENSE”). ---- A few small comments, none of which are actual *problems*. You can write Source0: and Patch0: as Source: and Patch:, respectively. The numbering isn’t needed. You can simplify Source/Source0 from https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/simple-websocket/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}/simple-websocket-%{version}.tar.gz first by writing https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/simple-websocket/archive/v%{version}/simple-websocket-%{version}.tar.gz which is equivalent but shorter, and then, if you like: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/simple-websocket-%{version}.tar.gz You can, if you like, write each description’s text as “%{summary}.” to avoid repetition. While patching out coverage dependencies and using “%pyproject_buildrequires -t” and “%tox” is perfectly reasonable, you might find it even simpler to add a manual “BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest}”, then use “%pyproject_buildrequires” and “%pytest”. The tox layer isn’t adding anything interesting in this package, and it might be easier than maintaining the patch to remove coverage tools from the test dependencies. Either approach seems sane, though. I think you should drop the manual “BuildRequires: python3dist(sphinx)” and instead add “%{?with_doc_pdf:-x docs}” to the %pyproject_buildrequires invocation. Looks just fine overall, though, except for the missing license file in -doc. ---- I am happy to co-maintain this, and to start on the engineio/socketio updates once it is approved and imported. -- 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=2244587 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202244587%23c6 _______________________________________________ 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
