https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721409 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; --- My preference is against abbreviations and continuations: - %global desc %{expand: \ - %description - %{desc} + %global _description %{expand: + %description %_description This will actually remove an unneeded empty line at the beginning of Description. Either add a comma after "extensible", or remove the one before "but". Having one but not the other is wrong, because it makes encourages the reader to parse "but extensible interface" as subordinate sentence. Are notestests required? pytest is supported better. -1 is strange. It is the same as 255 in this context, and usually means "killed by a signal". 1 would be better. But pushd already returns an error, so '|| exit ...' should not be necessary at all. And in fact, pushd is also unecessary: make -C docs SPHINXBUILD=sphinx-build-3 html ... That's painful. Hopefully this can be replaced by DynamicBuildrequires in the near future. + package name is OK + license is acceptable for Fedora (MIT) + license is specified correctly + builds and installs OK + BR/R/P look OK (if a bit tedious) + %python_provide macro is present + fedora-review and rpmlint are happy Package is APPROVED. -- 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=1721409 --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) Will the subpackage descriptions then similarly become: %description -n python3-%{pypi_name} %_description ? Tweaked. (It's upstream's description) Upstream does it like this, so I'd like to leave it as it is: https://github.com/JelteF/PyLaTeX/blob/master/testall.sh#L69 Of course! Updated. Still got a pushd in there for the fixes, though. I had a look at the DynamicBuildRequires page, but I'm not clear how it would pick up all of these tbh. One has to go through the code and figure them out. Thanks very much! Requesting repository now! -- 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=1721409 --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; --- Yep. That was just a suggestion. I should have said that. nose is dead, and pytest generally gives better reports, so if both work equally well, it's often better to switch even if upstream has different preferences. But nosetests is and will be in Fedora of course. Yeah, that's not really possible yet. rpm-4.15 only landed in rawhide, and we're only really starting to play with it. In this case there's little hope for an automated tool, but if you wrote some script to generate the BRs, e.g. by grepping the sources, the BR generator would have the advantage that it would be able to always run after %prep, so when upstream inevitably adds new imports, less packaging work would be required. -- 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=1721409 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2019-4d5430f21e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-4d5430f21e -- 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=1721409 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- python-pylatex-1.3.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-81a7b65fd1 -- 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=1721409 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- python-pylatex-1.3.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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