https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2443622



--- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> ---
> - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_time_dependency_on_python3_devel:
this requirement may be satisfied by any of:

- an explicit, manual BuildRequires: python3-devel
- use of %pyproject_buildrequires (c.f. the guidelines link above, as well as
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1384)
- use of BuildSystem: pyproject: not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines
since the declarative buildsystem remains provisional, but see discussion in
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1379

This package has BuildSystem: pyproject, so an explicit BuildRequires would be
redundant.

> b) Consider packaging the documentation. Happy to package missing 
> dependencies,
> but not a blocker.

As a general rule, I no longer package generated documentation in Python
packages. I was once a proponent of doing so, but I’ve slowly come around to
the view that the value of generated offline documentation is not worth the
complexity, added dependencies, and various issues associated with producing
it. HTML documentation has various issues with bundled CSS, JS, fonts, etc. and
their licenses. PDF documentation mostly sidesteps these, but can be fussy and
brittle, and brings in heavy build dependencies on TeX Live. Your method of
building documentation in texinfo format and then converting to Docbook XML is
clever, appears to comply with packaging guidelines, and can be useful for
those who know what to do with it. However, the result is a somewhat unusual
format that people are less likely to discover or know how to read, and which
needs close inspection for usefulness since it’s very unlikely to be tested by
upstreams, who are in most cases exclusively targeting HTML; and the added
spec-file complexity is viable, but not insignificant. Perhaps if there were a
distribution-wide consensus that this was “the” way to handle Python
documentation, then I might view this format as more worthwhile to produce.

> c) Should the name be python-python-discovery?
> On Pypi, there are both discovery and python-discovery packages:
> https://pypi.org/project/python-discovery/
> https://pypi.org/project/discovery/

In
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming,
the guidelines now explicitly state:

> The Fedora component (source package) name for a library should be formed by 
> taking the canonical project name and prepending python- if it does not 
> already start with python-. This may leads to conflicts (e.g. between 
> bugzilla and python-bugzilla). In that case, ensure upstream is aware of the 
> potentially confusing naming and apply best judgment.

Looking at https://pypi.org/project/discovery/#history, it was first released
on June 2, 2015, and the final release was just three days later. The GitHub
repository linked to by the PyPI page has been removed. It’s clear not only
that this now is a dead project, but also that it never really got off the
ground in the first place. It’s therefore vanishingly unlikely that the “other
discovery package” will ever be submitted to Fedora. Considering this, and the
above prescription quoted from the guidelines, I believe that python-discovery
is the correct name.


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2443622

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202443622%23c5

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new

Reply via email to