https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2291346 --- Comment #9 from wojnilowicz <lukasz.wojnilowicz@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Cristian Le from comment #8) > > I don't target EPEL9. Do you have any source of that information? > > Personal experience [1,2]. It seems to me that you're referring to a deprecated versioning scheme described at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#traditional-versioning and recommended for shipping complex versioning to EPEL7. From brief reading, I'm not even sure, you're using it as prescribed. Besides, none of this is my target, so I would rather not bring that up here. The versioning scheme I use is not deprecated, and as you can see at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/loguru works for EPEL9. > But it's more of cautionary that there can be > subtle differences in the git archive vs pypi_source. As mentioned earlier, "PyPi packages as a possibility and not as a first choice.". I believe, I follow the Packaging Guideline and expect you to follow it as well when reviewing. > > Oh. I didn't know it. Thanks. On one hand it would be good to have 0.5.13 but on the other there are some fixes like this one > > Ideally the relevant patches are cherry-picked instead. You can easily > create them by adding a `.patch` at the end of a github URL [3] (these are > compatible with pypi_source btw). Would be even good to use that as a > `Source` url also, but put in a readable name for it if you do that way. > This approach balances better the intention of upstream to distribute a > stable release and the need to backport some relevant fixes Can you provide any source in the Packaging Guidelines that it should be done as you describe it? > (the example > commit shown only affected the examples which are not being packaged or used > in the testing afaik) Fair enough. I didn't analyze the content of this patch. > [3]: https://github.com/ActivityWatch/aw-client/commit/7e12bf2c9727b6abba01e36669c04ebc69b5c89a.patch That's another nice feature of GitHub that I did not know about. Thanks for sharing. Anyway I believe, I'm using a valid sourcing method as seen at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_revision_control Do you really want me to switch to the 0.5.13 point release? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2291346 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202291346%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ 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
