https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656
--- Comment #23 from Xavier Bachelot <[email protected]> --- Some of the unavailable go packages have review bugs filed already. It seems there was a previous attempt at packaging grafana that has not been completed. Maybe some of the below bugs can be revived: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376719 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377262 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377227 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1679057 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377229 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376387 Other notes: - My understanding is the BuildRequires on go packages may need to be expressed as BR: golang(import_path) rather than BR: golang-forge-owner-repo-devel. - Does the bundled provides need to be expressed as P: bundled(golang(import_path)) ? - Similarly to ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches}, there is an ExclusiveArch: %{go_arches}, I guess we want only arches matching both of them. I'm probably reaching the limit of the help I can provide with this package review, I'm not knowledgeable enough about go (although I learned some tricks along the way). Elliott, you seem to have more insight, would you be able to provide guidance ? -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
