https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255
--- Comment #8 from Tomáš Hrnčiar <thrnciar(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7)
1. Have you considered using this patch definition?
That's a good idea, I will do it.
If you'd like to both use this AND have a nicer filename, you can
do:
Patch1:
https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.path/pull/1.patch#/better-filename.patch
Thanks, I wondered how to do it. I'll stick to 1.patch with full URL.
2. Have you considered having a nicer source filename? E.g. this:
Source0:
https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.path/archive/v%{version}/jaraco.path-
%{version}.tar.gz
I have to write this down :). I always struggle to use the correct GitHub URL's
when working with archives.
3. What is the benefit of defining the %pkg_name and %pypi_name
macros? I
find the spec file harder to read and it is not likely the values would
change with time (unlike e.g. %version). IMHO it is much simpler if the
values are used explicitly (especially since there are two different names
used here).
My spec file is based on the other jaraco packages and I was trying to be
consistent. But since I used pyproject-rpm-macros this is probably the only
"consistency" that left there so I'll just remove it.
--
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