https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2307912
--- Comment #24 from Miro Hrončok <[email protected]> --- > What about the `doc` subpackage in this case? `python3-pyliblo3-doc`? Or python-pyliblo3-doc. Or python-pyliblo3-docs. There seem to be no rule about this. I usually just don't bother with such packages. > Isn't this build-backend dependent? I guess setuptools and hatchling support > it at the moment? Hopefully this doesn't need to be ported to EPEL. The presence of the %license file is build-backedn dependent. But the -l asserts it worked. BTW the spec file now has both -l and %ľicense COPYING which is redundant. ------- Don't use <= in Obsoletes, it is almost always wrong. Use <, e.g.: Obsoletes: python3-pyliblo < 0.10.0-35 For Provides, if they are needed, use %py_provides. But they are not needed. Also, rename the package, please. -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2307912 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202307912%23c24 -- _______________________________________________ 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://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
