Re: [PATCH 7 of 7 stable] packaging: fix buildrpm whitespace
> On Oct 30, 2019, at 18:57, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > > On 10/30/19 9:14 PM, Augie Fackler wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 12:37:15AM +0100, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >>> # HG changeset patch >>> # User Mads Kiilerich >>> # Date 1572203819 -3600 >>> # Sun Oct 27 20:16:59 2019 +0100 >>> # Branch stable >>> # Node ID c84f1465c44ebc539b803b876206712e0ebd78b4 >>> # Parent 8c18adcd0177f3ca35f7f20f52f27f5a13ac9f90 >>> packaging: fix buildrpm whitespace >> Queued, many thanks - I have been meaning to try and fix our in-tree >> RPM building for a while. Let's plan to switch this to py3 by default >> for 5.2.1? > > > I can see Debian packaging already did switched to py3. So perhaps just do > the same already now for 5.2.0? Change the buildrpm default to py3 and > provide a --python2 option? While it is late and risky for 5.2.0, it seems > even more risky to do it for 5.2.1. Honestly either way is fine, as long as nothing will be broken or excluded from F31 repos long-term. > I don't know if it makes sense to switch over the old Fedora targets. Fedora > 31 is out now, 28 was EOL 5 months ago, and 29 is EOL in a month. Perhaps > just delete them and rely on the generic `make rpm` target instead? > > The docker targets are a bit more tricky to make more durable and > low-maintenance. They can't as easily be generic. But it could perhaps be > done with something like `make docker-fedora FEDORA=31` . I'll see if I can poke at this a bit - it feels like it should be doable, though I think we may as well drop all the fedoras prior to 30 since they're EOL or almost-EOL. > For centos, we should perhaps keep 5 and 6 on py2 for now ... also because we > don't yet have means for building our own py3 for these RPMs. Building Python > is a bit more tricky than building Mercurial, and it would require more > testing. *nod* Sounds sensible. Thanks again for fixing this stuff up! > > /Mads > ___ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
Re: [PATCH 7 of 7 stable] packaging: fix buildrpm whitespace
On 10/30/19 9:14 PM, Augie Fackler wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 12:37:15AM +0100, Mads Kiilerich wrote: # HG changeset patch # User Mads Kiilerich # Date 1572203819 -3600 # Sun Oct 27 20:16:59 2019 +0100 # Branch stable # Node ID c84f1465c44ebc539b803b876206712e0ebd78b4 # Parent 8c18adcd0177f3ca35f7f20f52f27f5a13ac9f90 packaging: fix buildrpm whitespace Queued, many thanks - I have been meaning to try and fix our in-tree RPM building for a while. Let's plan to switch this to py3 by default for 5.2.1? I can see Debian packaging already did switched to py3. So perhaps just do the same already now for 5.2.0? Change the buildrpm default to py3 and provide a --python2 option? While it is late and risky for 5.2.0, it seems even more risky to do it for 5.2.1. I don't know if it makes sense to switch over the old Fedora targets. Fedora 31 is out now, 28 was EOL 5 months ago, and 29 is EOL in a month. Perhaps just delete them and rely on the generic `make rpm` target instead? The docker targets are a bit more tricky to make more durable and low-maintenance. They can't as easily be generic. But it could perhaps be done with something like `make docker-fedora FEDORA=31` . For centos, we should perhaps keep 5 and 6 on py2 for now ... also because we don't yet have means for building our own py3 for these RPMs. Building Python is a bit more tricky than building Mercurial, and it would require more testing. /Mads ___ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
Re: [PATCH 7 of 7 stable] packaging: fix buildrpm whitespace
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 12:37:15AM +0100, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > # HG changeset patch > # User Mads Kiilerich > # Date 1572203819 -3600 > # Sun Oct 27 20:16:59 2019 +0100 > # Branch stable > # Node ID c84f1465c44ebc539b803b876206712e0ebd78b4 > # Parent 8c18adcd0177f3ca35f7f20f52f27f5a13ac9f90 > packaging: fix buildrpm whitespace Queued, many thanks - I have been meaning to try and fix our in-tree RPM building for a while. Let's plan to switch this to py3 by default for 5.2.1? ___ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
[PATCH 7 of 7 stable] packaging: fix buildrpm whitespace
# HG changeset patch # User Mads Kiilerich # Date 1572203819 -3600 # Sun Oct 27 20:16:59 2019 +0100 # Branch stable # Node ID c84f1465c44ebc539b803b876206712e0ebd78b4 # Parent 8c18adcd0177f3ca35f7f20f52f27f5a13ac9f90 packaging: fix buildrpm whitespace diff --git a/contrib/packaging/buildrpm b/contrib/packaging/buildrpm --- a/contrib/packaging/buildrpm +++ b/contrib/packaging/buildrpm @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ fi gethgversion if [ -z "$type" ] ; then - release=1 +release=1 else release=0.9_$type fi ___ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
