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

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 21:11 +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: >> >> > If you have patches that apply at different levels, you can't use >> > it, >> > unless there's a trick I don't know about. >> >> My

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

On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 21:11 +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > > > If you have patches that apply at different levels, you can't use > > it, > > unless there's a trick I don't know about. > > My patches are all -p1 as taught by ancient rpm lore, but sometimes I > mix patches from other

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

De: "Adam Williamson" On Sat, 2017-12-09 at 13:34 +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: >> I don't have a good history with %autosetup :) It tends to hate the patches >> I produce. > Did you know you still can/have to pass it a prefix level? That tripped > me up for a while. For most

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

On Sat, 2017-12-09 at 13:34 +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > I don't have a good history with %autosetup :) It tends to hate the patches I > produce. Did you know you still can/have to pass it a prefix level? That tripped me up for a while. For most cases, you want: %autosetup -p1

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

On 12/11/2017 12:51 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: De: "Panu Matilainen" Hi Panu, Kudos for work on reducing repetitive complex error prone cruft in specs! Thanks! But don't override %setup. There's no need for such abuse It is really pretty safe, the macro controls the

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

On 12/11/2017 12:51 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: De: "Panu Matilainen" and allows you to %autosetup underneath on versions where macro arguments are expanded (rpm >= 4.14) Interesting, are the changes described somewhere? Not that I want to break compat with el7 from the startup

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

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

De: "Panu Matilainen" Hi Panu, > Kudos for work on reducing repetitive complex error prone cruft in specs! Thanks! > 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

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

On 12/08/2017 08:03 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: Hi, I am proposing for inclusion a macro set aimed at automating the packaging of forge-hosted projects. — Packaging draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation — FPC ticket:

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

De: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" > Impressive! I just tested this on some random package using github and > everything works great. Thanks for the nice feedback > Would it be possible to drop the requirement to have "/" at the end > of a github URL? I think it's natural to paste the URL

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

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:03:48PM +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > Hi, > > I am proposing for inclusion a macro set aimed at automating the packaging of > forge-hosted projects. > > — Packaging draft: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation > —

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

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 3:33 AM, wrote: > > Since I'm a nice person I added GitLab support this morning (both gitlab.com > and hosted gitlab). Releases are clearly an afterthought in GitLab, they > depend on free-form tags and can't be used in rpm without knowing