Re: Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-25 Thread Ben Beasley
On 5/25/23 03:02, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 5/24/23 18:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Minor comment:    %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) is a bit nicer because it doesn't require 'cut', it just uses 'echo', which is a shell builtin. Or in rpm >= 4.19 (just landed in rawhide), you can

Re: Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-25 Thread Panu Matilainen
On 5/24/23 18:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 11:13:15AM -0400, Ben Beasley wrote: In your example, the forge macros simplify the spec file only because a snapshot is involved; but the forge macros put the snapshot info in the Release field, which is still

Re: Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-24 Thread PGNet Dev
If the need to package a snapshot goes away 'need' is certainly one right operative question. whose? Redhat's? official Fedora packaging's? "just us COPR users"? i'm in the last camp. i build/package to scratch my own projects' requirements' itch(es). here's one,

Re: Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-24 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 11:13:15AM -0400, Ben Beasley wrote: > In your example, the forge macros simplify the spec file only because a > snapshot is involved; but the forge macros put the snapshot info in the > Release field, which is still permissible but deprecated[1]. > > Without the forge

Re: Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-24 Thread Ben Beasley
In your example, the forge macros simplify the spec file only because a snapshot is involved; but the forge macros put the snapshot info in the Release field, which is still permissible but deprecated[1]. Without the forge macros, the spec file would admittedly be a little more complex. I

Re: Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-24 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 09:56:30AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 23/05/2023 19:27, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >... so today I was taking part in a package review which uses these > >macros and was surprised to be told that they are deprecated. > > Their author left Fedora a few

Re: Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-24 Thread Sandro
On 24-05-2023 09:56, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 23/05/2023 19:27, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: ... so today I was taking part in a package review which uses these macros and was surprised to be told that they are deprecated. Their author left Fedora a few years ago. They're now

Re: Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-24 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 23/05/2023 19:27, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: ... so today I was taking part in a package review which uses these macros and was surprised to be told that they are deprecated. Their author left Fedora a few years ago. They're now unmaintained and may be removed soon (see FPC ticket[1]).

Re: Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-23 Thread PGNet Dev
Original Message From: Richard W.M. Jones [mailto:rjo...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 1:27 PM EDT To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Status of the forge macros? I've been using the so-called forge macros in lots of packages: https

Re: Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-23 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 23. 05. 23 19:27, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I've been using the so-called forge macros in lots of packages: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control ... so today I was taking part in a package review which uses these macros

Status of the forge macros?

2023-05-23 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
I've been using the so-called forge macros in lots of packages: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control ... so today I was taking part in a package review which uses these macros and was surprised to be told that they are