https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112474
--- Comment #25 from Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email> ---
(In reply to Cole Robinson from comment #22)
FWIW offthread I've also offered to sponsor jsnow,
If you want to do the sponsoring in the end, that's fine with me, but I already
started this review, so I might as well finish it :).
and be an implicit
co-maintainer (as part of virtmaint-sig), since this will eventually be a
qemu dependency
That will work.
(In reply to John Snow from comment #23)
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #20)
> Some more comments:
As I go, I'm
learning a lot about the tooling and process so please pardon the temporary
slowness.
Don't worry! There's no time crunch here.
> Keep in mind that you won't be able to push incompatible
updates to this
> package in stable updates, either. Given that this is an alpha package,
> you'll have to take that into consideration.
Understood!
(You called it an alpha package -- is that because you read my readme?)
Yes, I did :).
Ah, I see. OK, I've mostly implemented your suggestion, but I did
spell out
"python-qemu-qmp-doc" explicitly instead.
(No strong reason, I guess I liked the visual parity? Will change if
desired.)
I'd prefer `%package doc` and `%files doc`.
Is it common to reproduce the same description for the doc package? I
picked
a few at random and it didn't seem that way, but I did it anyway.
I'm not really sure what's more common, but yes, that's what I'd
recommend.
I then found this blurb concerning pypi_source on the packaging
guidelines:
"For backward compatibility, the first argument is technically optional as
well, but omitting it is deprecated. (It defaults to %srcname if defined, or
to %pypi_name if defined, or to %name.)"
Yes, that's a good point that I sometimes forget. `%{pypi_source qemu.qmp}`
would be best here.
> > rm %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/qmp-tui
>
> I'm not a fan of this. Fedora packages should try to stay close to upstream
> projects[1], and this feels like a deviation from that. I'm happy to help
> you split it out into a subpackage if needed. However, if you still maintain
> that this shouldn't be packaged, I won't push hard on it.
>
> [1]:
>
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/
> Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects/
Understood. Currently, the TUI requires some packages that Fedora does not
yet package.
What are the missing dependencies? At least looking at the tui extra, all three
of those packages exist in Fedora.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112474