https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388375 Cristian Le <fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #31 from Cristian Le <fedora@xxxxxxxxx> --- I cannot sponsor, but I'll make sure you have a ticket. You can post in devel chat room afterwards to see if someone is available. But right now let's focus on the review and getting a hang of the process. There are a few points from the original comment that were not addressed. Not necessarily as changes in the spec file, but an ack and saying that you prefer a different way if it is the case for the non-blocking comments. > - Consider using autospec macros Unclear which way you want to go with this. Note that if you want to go with manual changelog, the current changelog is meaningless and will have to be recreated at import. > - The line `# Remove any wrongly-installed paths under sitearch/usr (happens with old setuptools)` would need more context Different comment message now, but it is still unresolved. I have edited locally to confirm that they are indeed written to site-packages (which is weird because `sys.prefix` expands to `/usr`. But I see that there are more relevant reasons for removing those, namely that you are editing them and installing in different location. I suggest you can either change the comment to reflect how you are editing and installing in different location or you patch it out of the `setup.py` (remove the `data_files` kw from `setup` part) > - If you are going to use a commit snapshot, see the snapshot guideline Not fully addressed, the version format should be `<version>^<snapshot_details>`, up to your choice from the guideline if you want to do it manually, or let forgemeta handle it behind the scenes --- Some other comments - The `%pyproject_save_files -l` works, so you can remove `%license LICENSE` since there is already a file bundled in there (`/usr/lib64/python*/site-packages/gshogi-*.dist-info/licenses`) - Why is `python3-gobject` and `gtk3` a build dependency? I assume these are for compilation, but then it should be `gtk3-devel` and not `gtk3`, but it seems to have compiled without it. For the python3-gobject, it should be added in the setup.py if it is really needed - I have noticed that they are doing some weird stuff in `ez_setup.pay`, please remove that file and the reference in `setup.py` - Non-blocker: Using the full git commit in the source reference is an eye-sore, you can truncate it to the first 7 characters - At some point you removed the `desktop-file-validate`, please add that back in Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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=2388375 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202388375%23c31 -- _______________________________________________ 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
