https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2280062
--- Comment #11 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Paul Pfeister from comment #8)
Your comment before `rm '%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/exrex.py'`. Are you saying this to avoid having ~both~ the exrex bin ~and~ exrex.py available, since we only want the one? Just want to confirm my understanding here.
There are two issues/questions here.
First, do we want to have both /usr/bin/exrex and /usr/bin/exrex.py? One comes from
https://github.com/asciimoo/exrex/blob/1c22c7066f7ed1420e3ad8efe28d7be16fe98...
and the other comes from
https://github.com/asciimoo/exrex/blob/1c22c7066f7ed1420e3ad8efe28d7be16fe98...
It’s permissible to have both, and one could argue either way, but I am not convinced upstream really strongly intended this. I suppose you could ask them. A command without the .py extension is much more “normal” in the system PATH.
Second, *if* you decide that /usr/bin/exrex.py should be packaged, it doesn’t make sense for it to be a duplicate copy of the entire library module installed in %{python3_sitelib}/exrex.py. (Note that /usr/bin/exrex is a very short generated entry-point script that relies on the module from %{python3_sitelib}). So *if* you retain /usr/bin/exrex.py, you should replace it with a symbolic or hard link to /usr/bin/exrex, something like (add -s if you want a symbolic link instead of a hardlink):
ln -f exrex '%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/exrex.py'
Hope that helps.
We don't seem to have a man page via help2man, but that's something I can continue to research later.
Oops! It worked for me in a virtualenv, but I didn’t test it in my suggested spec file. Let me look into that.