https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255786
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net ---
I guess this boils down to a matter of personal preferences. I quite like just throwing the URL in the spec and maybe a tag and let the forge macros do their magic. If needed, a `-v` or `rpmspec --parse` will let me peek under the hood.
Yes, I agree this is a matter of personal preference. I don’t think there’s an overwhelming technical argument either for or against the use of the forge macros in trivial cases like this.
(In reply to Sandro from comment #5)
Notes
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
=> While the package name is correct, it is unfortunate that it clashes with `python-argparse`, making this package look like a sub package of the former.
I agree it could be a bit confusing. At least it is in fact an *extension* of argparse. There’s also no python-argparse in Fedora because argparse is in the standard library now.
=> This could be your first package using the `-l` flag for `%pyproject_save_files`. I know the f38 update is still pending. But it should get there before the package is pushed to f38.
I am *very* excited about %pyproject_save_files. I’ve already added it to a bunch of “my” packages in Rawhide even though it’s not in F38/F39 yet and it still breaks Zuul.
I’ve been trying to avoid inflicting it on reviewers just yet, but I’ll add it after import in the rawhide branch.
Package is APPROVED.
Thank you for the review!