https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503175
--- Comment #11 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Aivar Annamaa from comment #10)
Thanks, Miro!
I got rid of pypi_name, the -n option, extra slahs after buildroot (the
slash after %{_datadir} is required, right?)
Yes. You can check with:
$ rpm --eval '%{_datadir}'
/usr/share
I also introduced
desktop-file-install. I also updated the version in changelog (forgot it
last time).
Good catch
With `%{python3_sitelib}/thonny` rpmbuild gave me:
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
/home/aivar/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/thonny-2.1.15-1.fc26.x86_64
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/PKG-INFO
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/SOURCES.txt
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/
dependency_links.txt
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/entry_points.
txt
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/requires.txt
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/thonny-2.1.15-py3.6.egg-info/top_level.txt
I tried `%{python3_sitelib}/thonny*` instead, and it seemed to work fine.
Should I keep this?
Sorry about that, I forgot egg-info. Whether you go with thorny* or something
more sophisticated is up to you. Thorny* will continue the build even if
something like thorny_tests will get packaged by accident. I'd go with:
%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}/
%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/
Noticed the trailing slashes? I use them to make sure it's a directory.
Using %{name} here, spo others can copy paste form your spec with minimum
effort.
However this works as well:
%{python3_sitelib}/thonny/
%{python3_sitelib}/thonny-*.egg-info
It's your call here.
The changes are visible here:
https://bitbucket.org/plas/thonny-rpm/commits/
8e6565e3b387cde2402f296ea2f11d303582a724
I see "%autosetup %{name}-%{version}" - you should be able to go with just
"%autosetup".
I now noticed that I've forgotten a licensing issue. The toolbar
icons are
licensed with EPL, so I guess I need to change `License: MIT` to `License:
MIT and EPL`. Am I right? But what should I then do with the EPL license
text? (It is included in the upstream tarball in
LICENSES/ECLIPSE-ICONS-LICENSE.txt) Currently my `%license LICENSE.txt`
references the MIT license, which is the license for the code. I didn't find
clear answers from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/
LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
I haven't looked at the licenses yet, but if what you say is correect, than I'd
go with the following (notice the comment):
# Code is MIT, icons are EPL
License: MIT and EPL
...
%license LICENSE.txt LICENSES/ECLIPSE-ICONS-LICENSE.txt
--
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