How can say it.... well I have livereload packaged since 2015 as:
Both have the same source.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
Well, its our packaging guidelines which do not states pypi sources should be packaged with prefix "python-". So one can package it with or without "python-" prefix.
But there is following written in naming guidelines of python
"Packages of python modules (thus they rely on python as a parent) use a slightly different naming scheme. They should take into account the upstream name of the python module. This makes a package name format of python-$NAME."
Please retire your package as "livereload" already in Fedora. Wish fedora-review could have catch this in its evaluation. While I reviewed this package I could not find any way to find "livereload" package.
Sorry, I was following https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1030755 and hence the mistake. Retiring https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-livereload/
In my first try to package this lib I was going for python-livereload with python2 and python3 support, but reviewer request to remane to livereload and only support python3, do you need python2 support? livereload provides python3-livereload and I can provide python2-livereload, this is not a big issue, do you want to comanintaing the package?
Shouldn't the other livereload package being renamed properly? My reasoning would be, it's primarily a library, where the package also provides an executable script.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 24 development cycle.
Changing version to '24'.
More information and reason for this action is here: