Spec URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-tabs.spec SRPM URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-tabs-1.3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Create tabbed content in Sphinx documentation when building HTML. Fedora Account System Username: hobbes1069
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59374959
I strongly recommend giving https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros a try. I can help witch questions. I can check the package later during the week.
+ /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test ... Ran 0 tests in 0.000s This is usually a sign that: - there are no tests in the tarball - or upstream runs tests differently There was an upstream report for setuptools to fail instead of success in that case, but it was dismissed as the test command is deprecated: WARNING: Testing via this command is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Users looking for a generic test entry point independent of test runner are encouraged to use tox. I cannot find the upstream issue. Anyway, sphinx-tabs uses pytest (and tox), I recommend using the github tarball (I see you already do) and running %pytest (or %tox, but that requires pyproject-rpm-macros).
I'm working on moving over to the pyproject method but it's somewhat confusing. The project does include a tox.ini file, so I added: %pyproject_buildrequires -t per the instructions but it fails with "No module named tox" or something to that effect, If I have to manually add tox as a BR then doesn't that defeat the purpose of all the macro magic?
You definitively don't need to do that. Make sure to put %pyproject_buildrequires in the %generate_buildrequires section. Feel free to share a work in progress specfile, I'll take a look.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914450, where I provided an example of rewriting a simple spec file to use the pyproject-rpm-macros.
Also, if you are interested I can do a video briefing.
May be interested, just busy :) I'll try to find some time this weekend to clean the spec up and post it.
Spec file link (only) has been updated for review. I have disabled testing for now.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - It is a lot easier to review if you update both the spec and SRPM. This will be mandatory for approval, since the SRPM is needed to create the initial dist-git repo. (Even better, bump the release when you make changes.) - The LICENSE.md file for the bundled semantic-ui must be installed with %license too. - There is a bundled copy of semantic-ui included. You must follow https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. Since upstream does not *technically* support building with an external copy, you have the option to publicly contact upstream about a path to doing so, and then add the appropriate virtual Provides: Provides: bundled(js-semantic-ui) = 2.4.1 However, all it would take to use a separately-packaged copy would be to replace this directory with a symbolic link. Then you could package js-semantic-ui as a dependency in accordance with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/JavaScript/ and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Web_Assets/. This has advantages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries#Why_Bundled_Libraries_are_a_problem. Note that if you do package or bundle js-semantic-ui, you must compile/minify the CSS and JS yourself from the original sources in the RPM build process, and you must include the original sources in the RPM, not just the minified ones. …but note the next issue, below! - A new major version, 2.0.0, was released in late January; you should package it instead. This affects the semantic-ui situation: “JS/CSS assets are now copied across by sphinx when builing, rather than being copied by the extension”. From testing building sphinx-tabs’s own documentation, I don’t see any reliance on semantic-ui at all. Maybe the problem has gone away. You should look into it more closely than I did. - You correctly noted in %check that Sphinx is too old for this package on EPEL (both 7 and 8). Besides, the pyproject-rpm-macros are not available on EPEL. So, remove the EPEL-specific cruft from the spec file. Each “%{python3_pkgversion}” should just become a “3”. This %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}} should be deleted; even if you were packaging for EPEL, you should conditionalize it because this macro should not be used on Fedora; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro. If you are packaging for Fedora 32, add: %if 0{?fedora} == 32 %py_provides python3-%{pypi_name} %endif where the conditional is not mandatory, but helps remind you to remove the macro once F32 is EOL. I recommend not bothering this late in its lifecycle, though. This was never needed even for EPEL, as both EPEL and Fedora define the macro: %{?!python3_pkgversion:%global python3_pkgversion 3} BR’s should be written like: BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools) - “%pyproject_save_files sphinx_tabs” could become “%pyproject_save_files %{python_module_name}”, if you like - Instead of manually specifying BR’s for testing, change %pyproject_buildrequires to %pyproject_buildrequires -x testing You can fix the missing python3dist(bs4) by replacing "bs4" with "beautifulsoup4" in setup.py; see https://pypi.org/project/bs4/. You can loosen the pytest version restriction, which is currently <4; version 6 does work. Unfortunately, you still cannot run the tests without python3dist(pytest-regressions), so choose one of the following: - Package python-pytest-regressions. - Figure out how to patch it out of the tests, and run them. - Go back to just “%pyproject_buildrequires”, and put a comment where the %check section would be explaining the missing dependency. If you do get the tests working, %check %pytest should work just fine. - It would be nice if you build the HTML documentation and installed it in a -doc subpackage. Just set PYTHONPATH and use sphinx-build. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/review-python-sphinx- tabs/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.9/site- packages/sphinx_tabs/__pycache__ [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site- packages/sphinx_tabs/__pycache__ [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Bundled js-semantic-ui must be handled per guidelines. See Issues. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Precompiled/pre-minified JS/CSS may not be used. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as noted) [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python (except as noted) [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sphinx-tabs-1.3.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-sphinx-tabs-1.3.0-1.fc34.src.rpm python-sphinx-tabs.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_pkgversion} python-sphinx-tabs.src:25: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_pkgversion} python-sphinx-tabs.src:27: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_pkgversion} python-sphinx-tabs.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 24: %{python3_pkgversion}-beautifulsoup4 python-sphinx-tabs.src: E: specfile-error python-sphinx-tabs.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 25: %{python3_pkgversion}-pygments python-sphinx-tabs.src: E: specfile-error python-sphinx-tabs.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 27: %{python3_pkgversion}-sphinx 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-tabs/archive/v1.3.0/sphinx-tabs-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c6fc75c282bd56fe1cf58a5d97ce6f6ceb252e56e34f6e1c7eff28ee0ff94036 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c6fc75c282bd56fe1cf58a5d97ce6f6ceb252e56e34f6e1c7eff28ee0ff94036 Requires -------- python3-sphinx-tabs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.9dist(sphinx) < 4 with python3.9dist(sphinx) >= 2) python(abi) python3.9dist(pygments) Provides -------- python3-sphinx-tabs: python-sphinx-tabs python3-sphinx-tabs python3.9-sphinx-tabs python3.9dist(sphinx-tabs) python3dist(sphinx-tabs) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-sphinx-tabs Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ruby, Perl, Haskell, R, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to code from comment #10) > > Issues: > ======= > - It is a lot easier to review if you update both the spec and SRPM. This > will > be mandatory for approval, since the SRPM is needed to create the initial > dist-git repo. (Even better, bump the release when you make changes.) Sorry the intent was to get a quick re-review from Miro as I essentially rewrote the specfile based on his feedback. > - The LICENSE.md file for the bundled semantic-ui must be installed with > %license too. > > - There is a bundled copy of semantic-ui included. You must follow > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. Since > upstream does not *technically* support building with an external copy, you > have the option to publicly contact upstream about a path to doing so, and > then add the appropriate virtual Provides: > > Provides: bundled(js-semantic-ui) = 2.4.1 > > However, all it would take to use a separately-packaged copy would be to > replace this directory with a symbolic link. Then you could package > js-semantic-ui as a dependency in accordance with > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/JavaScript/ and > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Web_Assets/. This > has advantages: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > Bundled_Libraries#Why_Bundled_Libraries_are_a_problem. > > Note that if you do package or bundle js-semantic-ui, you must > compile/minify > the CSS and JS yourself from the original sources in the RPM build process, > and you must include the original sources in the RPM, not just the minified > ones. > > …but note the next issue, below! > > - A new major version, 2.0.0, was released in late January; you should > package > it instead. This affects the semantic-ui situation: “JS/CSS assets are now > copied across by sphinx when builing, rather than being copied by the > extension”. From testing building sphinx-tabs’s own documentation, I don’t > see any reliance on semantic-ui at all. Maybe the problem has gone away. > You > should look into it more closely than I did. There's not longer anything bundled which is good because I only need this as a dep for OpenColorIO 2.0. I don't need any more packages :) > - You correctly noted in %check that Sphinx is too old for this package on > EPEL > (both 7 and 8). Besides, the pyproject-rpm-macros are not available on > EPEL. > So, remove the EPEL-specific cruft from the spec file. > > Each “%{python3_pkgversion}” should just become a “3”. Done. > This > %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}} > should be deleted; even if you were packaging for EPEL, you should > conditionalize it because this macro should not be used on Fedora; see > > This was never needed even for EPEL, as both EPEL and Fedora define the > macro: > %{?!python3_pkgversion:%global python3_pkgversion 3} I cleaned it up. I only plan to build for Fedora. I only need it for Rawhide but I may build it for f33 as well. > BR’s should be written like: > > BuildRequires: python3-devel > BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools) Done. > - “%pyproject_save_files sphinx_tabs” could become > “%pyproject_save_files %{python_module_name}”, if you like Done. > - Instead of manually specifying BR’s for testing, change > %pyproject_buildrequires > to > %pyproject_buildrequires -x testing > > You can fix the missing python3dist(bs4) by replacing "bs4" with > "beautifulsoup4" in setup.py; see https://pypi.org/project/bs4/. > > You can loosen the pytest version restriction, which is currently <4; > version > 6 does work. > > Unfortunately, you still cannot run the tests without > python3dist(pytest-regressions), so choose one of the following: > > - Package python-pytest-regressions. > - Figure out how to patch it out of the tests, and run them. > - Go back to just “%pyproject_buildrequires”, and put a comment where the > %check section would be explaining the missing dependency. > > If you do get the tests working, > %check > %pytest > should work just fine. Again, since this is only being used as a build dep for me and I don't need anymore packages I think I'll leave it alone for now. > - It would be nice if you build the HTML documentation and installed it in a > -doc subpackage. Just set PYTHONPATH and use sphinx-build. Done.
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-tabs.spec SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-tabs-2.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm * Fri Feb 05 2021 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069> - 2.0.0-1 - Update to latest release and correct spec per reviewer comments. Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61458685
It looks like this package is using %pyproject_save_files correctly, yet it does not own the /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/sphinx_tabs/__pycache__ directory. I compared with a package I recently rescued from orphaning and converted to full pyproject-rpm-macros, and mine has the same problem: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-junit_xml Miro, have you seen that before? Do you have any ideas? It feels like it could be a pyproject-rpm-macros bug.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Add %license LICENSE to %files doc - Not running tests is OK due to missing dependency python3dist(pytest-regressions). - Does not own /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/sphinx_tabs/__pycache__ despite apparently correct use of %pyproject_save_files; possible pyproject-rpm-macros bug? Asked Miro Hrončok for thoughts. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1914689-python-sphinx- tabs/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.9/site- packages/sphinx_tabs/__pycache__ [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site- packages/sphinx_tabs/__pycache__ [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-sphinx-tabs [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Missing dependency python3dist(pytest-regressions). [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sphinx-tabs-2.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python3-sphinx-tabs-doc-2.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-sphinx-tabs-2.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-tabs/archive/v2.0.0/sphinx-tabs-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ebc251537b1002ee4ae42baefd58a7462f10fb6db91e529b1ac4351fdf131f5f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ebc251537b1002ee4ae42baefd58a7462f10fb6db91e529b1ac4351fdf131f5f Requires -------- python3-sphinx-tabs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.9dist(sphinx) < 4 with python3.9dist(sphinx) >= 2) python(abi) python3.9dist(pygments) python3-sphinx-tabs-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-sphinx-tabs: python-sphinx-tabs python3-sphinx-tabs python3.9-sphinx-tabs python3.9dist(sphinx-tabs) python3dist(sphinx-tabs) python3-sphinx-tabs-doc: python3-sphinx-tabs-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914689 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> Miro, have you seen that before? Do you have any ideas? It feels like it could be a pyproject-rpm-macros bug. Oh, I have not noticed this before, thanks for the report, it is indeed a bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925963
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-tabs.spec SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-tabs-2.0.0-2.fc33.src.rpm * Sun Feb 07 2021 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069> - 2.0.0-2 - Make sure doc subpackage requires main package. - Add __pychace__ dir to %%files temporaryly, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925963 It doesn't make sense to include the LICENSE file twice, as long as the doc package requires a package (in this case the main package) that installs it the packaging guidelines are met.
> It doesn't make sense to include the LICENSE file twice, as long as the doc package requires a package (in this case the main package) that installs it the packaging guidelines are met. Agreed; I usually do not force the -doc package to depend on the main package, but this is certainly a valid way to meet the requirement. Thanks for your efforts. Package approved.
> Add __pychace__ dir to %%files temporaryly Fix is on the way. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/pull-request/146
(In reply to code from comment #17) > > Thanks for your efforts. Package approved. Thanks for the review! (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #18) > > Fix is on the way. > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/pull-request/146 Thanks Miro. I'll leave my band-aid in place for the initial built and then remove it.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-tabs