https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001684
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1)
I don't understand why is the component named python-keyrings-alt
but the
built package python3-keyrings.alt -- I'd stick to one naming. Honestly, the
%{pypi_name}/%{pretty_name} macros only makes the package harder to read.
Eh, sorry about that. I forgot to update the macro.
What is the suggested way of dealing with this without using pretty_name etc.
type macros? Use the names in each place? %pypi_source uses %srcname, then
%pypi_name, and then %name, so I tend to use pypi_name in specs at least. In
this case that differs from what the package name should be so we have another
pretty_name macro.
If there's a better/suggested way of handling such cases, I'm all ears.
------------
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest}
This should not be needed.
Removed
> %pyproject_buildrequires -t
Since you don't use %tox, you can probably use:
%pyproject_buildrequires -x testing
Used: %pyproject_buildrequires %{?with_tests:-x testing}
To avoid a superfluous dependency on tox.
------------
You can use `%pyproject_save_files keyrings` if your intention is to own the
entire %{python3_sitelib}/keyrings directory.
Ah, right. I thought it wouldn't include the keyrings.alt.*dist-info directory,
but it does. I've used that now.
Updated spec/srpm:
Spec URL:
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-keyrings-alt/python-keyrings-a...
SRPM URL:
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-keyrings-alt/python-keyrings-a...
Cheers,
--
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.