https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278424 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: myst-nb - |python-myst-nb - Jupyter |Jupyter Notebook Sphinx |Notebook Sphinx reader |reader --- Comment #11 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #10) > %_description is strangely formatted… There are double spaces between > sentences and the line breaks seem uneven. I learned to type on a manual typewriter, where the teacher beat into our heads that there must be two spaces following a period that ends a sentence, and one space following a period that ends an abbreviation. This was reinforced in grad school; the TeX typesetting system follows the same convention. It is further reinforced by my long-standing use of Emacs to edit files. Its line wrapping algorithm is affected by the number of spaces after a period. Anyway, I don't consider that strange at all. The %description section of all 400-some packages I maintain follow this convention, even if it is archaic. The uneven line breaks are due to wrapping at 72 characters. I used to wrap at 78, but somebody complained that that made a package description look weird in some GUI interface. I don't even remember what GUI interface it was, but I've been wrapping at 72 ever since, out of habit I guess. I see that rpmlint considers a description line too long it if is over 79 characters. I have rewrapped %description at 79 characters. See if that looks better to you. > > %{?with_doc:-x rtd}%{?with_test:-x testing} > I think this will not be valid if both are enabled, since there is > no space between the two expressions. Yes, you're right. Nor am I sure that %pyproject_buildrequires can be given two -x arguments. I have introduced an %if to ensure correct syntax is used. > Hmm, I'm not sure if the package name should use 'python3-' prefix. > Is the primary purpose of the package the importable module or the > tools? Because if the latter, maybe the binary package should called > 'myst-nb' or 'mystnb'? > Or even if not, maybe some Provides should be added? That's a good point. I believe the primary purpose is to provide the tools. I have changed the package name to myst-nb and added python3 provides. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/myst-nb/myst-nb.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/myst-nb/myst-nb-1.1.1-1.fc41.src.rpm -- 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=2278424 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202278424%23c11 -- _______________________________________________ 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
