Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

Hi, > 4. There is a bug in EL7 that causes spectool not to process the resulting > files. rpmbuild and mock work fine though. I > added a -i switch to the macro that prints the resolved source url, you can > then dump it in curl, wget or whatever in EL7. > Alternatively, get someone to fix the

Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

Hi Anyway, to answer some of the questions posted during review and in: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2017-12-13/fpc.2017-12-13-18.00.log.html 1. I just posted the second part of the proposal (the Go-specific bits). Read it there

Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

On 12/11/2017 06:07 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: Hi all, Since most participants seems to be in favor of explicit %setup handling, I've updated the wiki and the macro file Thank you. - Panu - ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

Hi all, Since most participants seems to be in favor of explicit %setup handling, I've updated the wiki and the macro file Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

De: "Panu Matilainen" > On a more constructive note, I'd think conceptually this might better > fit into %autosetup territory. Have you looked at extending that, rather > than overriding/building something separate? I've looked at it a bit, but apart the fact autosetup is an actual macro,

Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:23:19PM +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > Hi Neal, > > > And the issue you're having that requires %setupargs is not a problem > > in RPM 4.14 > > I don't have an issue with %setupargs, I have an issue with requiring > packagers to change stuff in the spec

Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

On 12/11/2017 02:23 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: Hi Neal, And the issue you're having that requires %setupargs is not a problem in RPM 4.14 I don't have an issue with %setupargs, I have an issue with requiring packagers to change stuff in the spec header *and* at %prep level,

Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

Hi Neal, > And the issue you're having that requires %setupargs is not a problem > in RPM 4.14 I don't have an issue with %setupargs, I have an issue with requiring packagers to change stuff in the spec header *and* at %prep level, which is not in the same place of the spec. That is something

Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:57 AM, wrote: >>De: "Panu Matilainen" > > Hi Panu, > >>> But don't override %setup. There's no need for such abuse > >> It is really pretty safe, the macro controls the downloaded file, the file >> structure is known, the only time it won't

Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

>De: "Panu Matilainen" Hi Panu, >> But don't override %setup. There's no need for such abuse > It is really pretty safe, the macro controls the downloaded file, the file > structure is known, the only time it won't "just > work" is when a spec needs to call %setup several times (in that case