https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #20 from Jerry James ---
No problem. To punish you for your sins, I've made you comaintainer. :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #19 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
Thanks for following up on this; I planned to get to it again this weekend, but
you had already progressed pretty far.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #17 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-design
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #16 from Jerry James ---
Thank you very much, Karolina. I appreciate you sticking with this review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
Karolina Surma changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ksu...@redhat.com
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #14 from Jerry James ---
The correct conjunction is now used in SPDX expressions. New URLs:
Spec URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-design/python-sphinx-design.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #13 from Miro Hrončok ---
The SPDX syntax uses uppercase AND:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_conjunctive_and_licensing
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #12 from Jerry James ---
Huh, I didn't realize that "doc" versus "docs" matters. I've made that change,
and also converted all of the license info over to SPDX. Any instances of
"MIT" now refer to the SPDX identifier of that name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
Mattias Ellert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2095189, 2105307
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
Mattias Ellert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #9 from Karolina Surma ---
Except for the doc issue, the package meets the Packaging Guidelines, it
installs, it is possible to use (I tested it with Sphinx 5 & python-myst-parser
0.18 on Rawhide), its metadata look correctly, requ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #8 from Karolina Surma ---
> > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> > (~1MB) or number of files.
> > Note: Documentation size is 2088960 bytes in 61 files.
> > See: https://docs.fedorapro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #5)
> Note that this depends on the build backend. I've been telling people that
> when the build backend marks it as License-File, %{pyproject_files} will
> include it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
Karolina Surma changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ksu...@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok ---
> Miro has been telling people that adding the license file under %license as
> well is redundant, so I left it out of this package.
Note that this depends on the build backend. I've been telling people t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mhron...@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James ---
Thank you for the unofficial review, Benson. Here are my (not completely
satisfactory) answers to your questions.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
> - If (and only if) the source package includes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite ---
Unofficial Review:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source packag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099902
José Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Doc Type|---
20 matches
Mail list logo
