On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:05 PM Maxwell G wrote:
>
> I'll bite :). I changed the subject accordingly.
>
> On Tue Oct 24, 2023 at 00:31 +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>
> > Packaging become an automatized task, and maintainers don't pay
> > attention to %changelog beauty so they simply generate it
I'll bite :). I changed the subject accordingly.
On Tue Oct 24, 2023 at 00:31 +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Packaging become an automatized task, and maintainers don't pay
> attention to %changelog beauty so they simply generate it from git-log
> (but I'd claim that git-log != %changelog).
I
On úterý 24. října 2023 0:31:49 CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On pátek 30. prosince 2022 20:01:55 CEST Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
> >
> > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> > process, proposals are publicly
On pátek 30. prosince 2022 20:01:55 CEST Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
>
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This proposal
On Mon, Feb 6, 2023, 12:44 Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I have just learned the hard way that `fedpkg import` does not work with
> `rpmautospec` and that is show stopper for me. I have reported ticket here:
>
> https://pagure.io/rpkg/issue/655
I ran into this myself and found its a bit less of an
I have just learned the hard way that `fedpkg import` does not work with
`rpmautospec` and that is show stopper for me. I have reported ticket here:
https://pagure.io/rpkg/issue/655
And won't try rpmautospec again until this is resolved.
Vít
Dne 30. 12. 22 v 20:01 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 6:27 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> I have just realized, that the rpmautospec is not documented in the
> guidelines (unless my search-fu is failing me). Therefore I consider it
> strange that we should go from "no documentation at all" to "use it by
> default". I don't think
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:53 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:16 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:37:44PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> > Now I'm getting bit by the rpmautospec and COPR issue.
>>
>> Please be more precise. How are you
I have just realized, that the rpmautospec is not documented in the
guidelines (unless my search-fu is failing me). Therefore I consider it
strange that we should go from "no documentation at all" to "use it by
default". I don't think this is right.
IOW why is it not documented yet as an
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:48 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 10. 01. 23 13:52, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Second, how exactly are you building the package?
> > Looking at [1], you used "Source Type: SRPM or .spec file upload".
> > How was it generated?
> >
> > [1]
>
On 10. 01. 23 13:52, Richard Shaw wrote:
Second, how exactly are you building the package?
Looking at [1], you used "Source Type: SRPM or .spec file upload".
How was it generated?
[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/hobbes1069/OIIO/build/5210045/
I have a roundabout way to make COPR and rpmautospec work with any git repo :)
1. Create a new COPR project
2. Add a new COPR package with source type Custom
- Script
#! /bin/sh -x
git clone
cd
spectool -g
#other stuff you need to prepare
rpmautospec process-distgit
- Build dependencies:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:16 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:37:44PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Now I'm getting bit by the rpmautospec and COPR issue.
>
> Please be more precise. How are you building the rpms?
>
The SRPMS? I'm using
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 4:39 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 10. 01. 23 v 9:29 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel napsal(a):
> > On 10/01/2023 08:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >> If rpmautospec is used in COPR, and the build is started in a
> >> compatible way, the release field should be the
On 10/01/2023 10:38, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
But in your case you should rather use DistGit instead of SCM method
(the first row of tabs):
https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#distgit
Looks interesting. Thank you very much for the info. I will use it in
the future.
--
* Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
> On 10/01/2023 08:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> If rpmautospec is used in COPR, and the build is started in a
>> compatible way, the release field should be the same as in koji.
>
> Steps to reproduce:
>
> 1. Create a new COPR project.
> 2. Add a new COPR
Dne 10. 01. 23 v 9:29 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel napsal(a):
On 10/01/2023 08:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
If rpmautospec is used in COPR, and the build is started in a
compatible way, the release field should be the same as in koji.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a new COPR project.
On 10/01/2023 08:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
If rpmautospec is used in COPR, and the build is started in a
compatible way, the release field should be the same as in koji.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a new COPR project.
2. Add a new COPR package with building from SCM:
- Type -
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:37:44PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Now I'm getting bit by the rpmautospec and COPR issue.
Please be more precise. How are you building the rpms?
If rpmautospec is used in COPR, and the build is started in a
compatible way, the release field should be the same as in
Now I'm getting bit by the rpmautospec and COPR issue.
I'm trying to test rebuilds of all dependent packages for a new OpenColorIO
release, but usd uses rpmautospec and in Fedora it's usd--16 but
COPR is calculating it as usd--9 so the Fedora version has a
higher NEVR.
Now what am I supposed to
Neal Gompa kirjoitti 4.1.2023 klo 18.02:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:51 AM Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:38 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:25 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
Perhaps this can be modified to create a layout that matches dist-git?
Probably not,
Dne 04. 01. 23 v 16:24 Chuck Anderson napsal(a):
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 03:04:02PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 03. 01. 23 v 19:03 Todd Zullinger napsal(a):
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Yes, this is what I was talking about too. Because rpmbuild does not set
%_sourcedir, it may fail
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:51 AM Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:38 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:25 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
>>
>> > Perhaps this can be modified to create a layout that matches dist-git?
>>
>> Probably not, because Dist-Git is
Hi
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:38 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:25 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> > Perhaps this can be modified to create a layout that matches dist-git?
>
> Probably not, because Dist-Git is a Fedora-specific thing, so I
> wouldn't accept such a change in
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:25 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 03:04:02PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> > Dne 03. 01. 23 v 19:03 Todd Zullinger napsal(a):
> > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >> Yes, this is what I was talking about too. Because rpmbuild does not set
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 03:04:02PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 03. 01. 23 v 19:03 Todd Zullinger napsal(a):
> > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >> Yes, this is what I was talking about too. Because rpmbuild does not set
> >> %_sourcedir, it may fail to load some files. Even worse, it
Dne 03. 01. 23 v 19:03 Todd Zullinger napsal(a):
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Yes, this is what I was talking about too. Because rpmbuild does not set
%_sourcedir, it may fail to load some files. Even worse, it may load *wrong*
versions, e.g. when some old version is present in the
Dan Horák kirjoitti 3.1.2023 klo 15.23:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 08:14:04 -0500
Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Could you please elucidate why the command that people have used for nearly
30 years and is the most documented on how to build rpms is broken? And how
people should use instead when they may be
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 5:10 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:02 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:30 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> > >
> > > V Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> > > > Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:02 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:30 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> > >
> > > V Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> > > > Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:02 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:30 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> >
> > V Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> > > Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages for RHEL
> > > that they don't truncate or eliminate the
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:27 PM Otto Liljalaakso
wrote:
> Kalev Lember kirjoitti 3.1.2023 klo 11.19:
> > We might need to update package maintainer documents to be clear about
> this
> > though, so that people know that they should use 'fedpkg srpm' and not
> > 'rpmbuild -bs'.
>
> In Package
Kalev Lember kirjoitti 3.1.2023 klo 11.19:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:13 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
- fedpkg mockbuild
But it
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:30 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> V Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> > Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages for RHEL
> > that they don't truncate or eliminate the Git history anymore? Because I
> > would
> > personally be very
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 5:56 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 02 January 2023 at 09:57, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Dne 02. 01. 23 v 9:38 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
> > > produces bogus changelog messages and artificially
> > > inflates Release counters.
> >
> >
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 4:43 AM Maxwell G via devel
wrote:
>
> On Mon Jan 2, 2023 at 09:57 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Dne 02. 01. 23 v 9:38 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
> > > produces bogus changelog messages and artificially
> > > inflates Release counters.
> >
> > I always
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Yes, this is what I was talking about too. Because rpmbuild does not set
> %_sourcedir, it may fail to load some files. Even worse, it may load *wrong*
> versions, e.g. when some old version is present in the ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/.
> Personally, I have dozens of
Dne 03. 01. 23 v 16:24 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:21 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 03:50:10PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 03. 01. 23 v 14:20 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 2:14 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, 3
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:21 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 03:50:10PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> > Dne 03. 01. 23 v 14:20 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
> > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 2:14 PM Stephen Smoogen
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 3 Jan
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 03:50:10PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 03. 01. 23 v 14:20 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 2:14 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 04:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at
Dne 03. 01. 23 v 14:20 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 2:14 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 04:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 13:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > BuildError: Error running GIT command "git clone -n
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fwupd.git
> > /var/lib/mock/f38-build-4075-4953952/root/chroot_tmpdir/scmroot/fwupd",
> > see checkout.log for details
> | fatal: the remote end
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 08:14, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 04:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>> > On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> > > -
* Richard Hughes:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 19:02, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> Version: 1.2.3
>> Release: %autorelease
>> %autochangelog
>
> I tied this on a package this morning and got:
>
> BuildError: Error running GIT command "git clone -n
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fwupd.git
>
* Stephen Smoogen:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 04:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > - fedpkg mockbuild
> >
> > But it doesn't work correctly
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 8:24 AM Dan Horák wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 08:14:04 -0500
> Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 04:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > > On 02/01/2023
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 08:14:04 -0500
Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 04:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > - fedpkg mockbuild
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 2:14 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 04:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>> > On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> > > - fedpkg mockbuild
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 04:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > - fedpkg mockbuild
> >
> > But it doesn't work correctly (will always use Release: 1) if
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 19:02, Ben Cotton wrote:
> Version: 1.2.3
> Release: %autorelease
> %autochangelog
I tied this on a package this morning and got:
BuildError: Error running GIT command "git clone -n
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fwupd.git
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:13 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > - fedpkg mockbuild
> >
> > But it doesn't work correctly (will
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > - fedpkg mockbuild
>
> But it doesn't work correctly (will always use Release: 1) if you run
> "rpmbuild -bs foo-bar.spec" which is a very common scenario.
On 03/01/2023 09:30, Petr Pisar wrote:
Different number of commits will mean different release numbers. That will
break package interdependencies which requires a specific release number. E.g
foo requires bar.
Good point. Hard-coded release numbers are a serious problem even in Fedora.
We
On 01/01/2023 15:10, Florian Weimer wrote:
COPR seems to work in some cases, specifically with the dist-git build
(but not just building from dist-git).
Run "rpmbuild -bs foo-bar.spec", upload it to COPR and it will use
Release: 1.
I also need to figure out if it works with building from
On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
- fedpkg mockbuild
But it doesn't work correctly (will always use Release: 1) if you run
"rpmbuild -bs foo-bar.spec" which is a very common scenario.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
V Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages for RHEL
> that they don't truncate or eliminate the Git history anymore? Because I would
> personally be very displeased if my historical attribution went away
> because of
Dne 02. 01. 23 v 22:39 Otto Liljalaakso napsal(a):
Also, 'mock --buildsrpm' will not convert them. Perhaps Vitaly meant mock should support such usage?
Mock cannot add such support, because Mock rarely operate on top of dist-git (or even git). So there is no way how to
retrieve git log.
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek kirjoitti 2.1.2023 klo 22.44:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 03:10:22PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
On 30/12/2022 20:01, Ben Cotton wrote:
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly
Dne 02. 01. 23 v 22:01 Richard Shaw napsal(a):
Also mock builds seem fine. I tested this now on F37 with a few different
scenarios:
- fedpkg mockbuild
- git commit --allow-empty -m Rebuild && fedpkg mockbuild
- fedpkg srpm && mock *.src.rpm
seem to generate the expected
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 03:01:16PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 2:44 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 03:10:22PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
> > >
> > > > On 30/12/2022 20:01, Ben
On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 12:06:51PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:44 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:23:35AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:17 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 31. 12. 22 15:07,
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 2:44 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 03:10:22PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
> >
> > > On 30/12/2022 20:01, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of
On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 03:10:22PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
>
> > On 30/12/2022 20:01, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> >> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> >> community
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Personally, I use the kernel's recommended commit to the oldest
> supported branch and merge upwards workflow and I've learned not to be
> afraid of merge commits. If any branch needs some specific fixes,
> I just apply them there and only there, without
On Monday, 02 January 2023 at 09:57, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 02. 01. 23 v 9:38 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
> > produces bogus changelog messages and artificially
> > inflates Release counters.
>
> I always wondered why people are afraid of gaps in numbering? It is
> just a
Similar situation happens if you have spec file in upstream. The problem
is that mass rebuilds are
adding entries to dowstream spec file only, so you have to manually
merge the upstream and
downstream or ideally do a backport upstream before realese. This is
nice and easy solution for
the
On Mon Jan 2, 2023 at 09:57 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 02. 01. 23 v 9:38 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
> > produces bogus changelog messages and artificially
> > inflates Release counters.
>
> I always wondered why people are afraid of gaps in numbering? It is
> just a number.
Dne 02. 01. 23 v 9:38 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
produces bogus changelog messages and artificially
inflates Release counters.
I always wondered why people are afraid of gaps in numbering? It is just a number. The number will not object if you
skip some of them. :)
Or it is
On Sunday, 01 January 2022 at 20:51, Fabio Valentini wrote:
[...]
> Additionally, not having Release counter and changelog in the .spec
> file means that you can usually freely cherry-pick or merge bug-fix
> commits across different dist-git branches. This wasn't possible
> without rpmautospec due
Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Speaking for myself: Using rpmautospec has massively reduced the
> maintenance burden for the Rust stack, and also for other packages
> that I maintain.
>
> Due to the way optional dependencies / features are mapped to RPM
> subpackages (this works like with "extra"
On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 03:37:34PM -0500, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 at 13:40, Kevin Kofler via devel <
> > https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/autochangelog.html#changelog-entries-generated-from-commit-messages
> >
> > All in all a very complicated and error-prone
On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 9:38 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
> My main questions are what is this supposed to fix long term?
>
> I have guessed that it has to do with automation, the shrinking number of
> active packagers in operating systems, and the exploding number of packages
> in requested
On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:44 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:23:35AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:17 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >
> > > On 31. 12. 22 15:07, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa
* Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
> On 30/12/2022 20:01, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
>> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
>> community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
>> by the Fedora
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 at 13:40, Kevin Kofler via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > tl;dr: you want to fix changelog entries. That's supported by saving the
> > generated changelog to 'changelog' file and doing whatever edits you want
> > there.
>
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> tl;dr: you want to fix changelog entries. That's supported by saving the
> generated changelog to 'changelog' file and doing whatever edits you want
> there.
>
> With that approach, you can do arbitrary formatting and fixups. The
> advantage compared to status
On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:23:35AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:17 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 31. 12. 22 15:07, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> >
On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 01:09:54AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Rpmautospec (`%autorelease` and `%autochangelog`) is recommended as
> > the default approach.
> > Packaging Guidelines and other documentation are adjusted to describe
> > this approach first.
> > Various tools that
On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:17 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 31. 12. 22 15:07, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal
On 31. 12. 22 15:07, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 9:07 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > >
Il 30/12/22 20:01, Ben Cotton ha scritto:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
>
I'm lazy, so I usually just 'git merge rawhide' in other branches...
what's the support status of rpmautospec for EPEL? Last time I tried, it
wasn't working in EPEL8.
Mattia
On 30/12/2022 22:49, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
That's OK, the idea is to make this opt-in.
It is already opt-in. Some packages switched to rpmautospec when it was
introduced.
I've done this too for some of my packages and due to known issues
reverted back to classic behavior due
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 07:56:05PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:50 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 08:46:46PM -, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > > -1 for this change.
> > > I will ignore it if it's accepted.
> >
> > That's OK, the idea is
On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 12:49:57AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 9:50 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 08:46:46PM -, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > > -1 for this change.
> > > I will ignore it if it's accepted.
> >
> > That's OK, the
On 30/12/2022 20:01, Ben Cotton wrote:
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
-1 until
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:50 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 08:46:46PM -, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > -1 for this change.
> > I will ignore it if it's accepted.
>
> That's OK, the idea is to make this opt-in.
> Without any specific concerns, that's all I can say.
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 9:50 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 08:46:46PM -, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > -1 for this change.
> > I will ignore it if it's accepted.
>
> That's OK, the idea is to make this opt-in.
So if the change is opt-in how is this an actual
> Rpmautospec (`%autorelease` and `%autochangelog`) is recommended as
> the default approach.
> Packaging Guidelines and other documentation are adjusted to describe
> this approach first.
> Various tools that provide spec file templates are adjusted.
-1 to this proposal.
As I had already
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
> > Have we made sure that when Red Hat
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 08:46:46PM -, Leigh Scott wrote:
> -1 for this change.
> I will ignore it if it's accepted.
That's OK, the idea is to make this opt-in.
Without any specific concerns, that's all I can say.
Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list --
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
> Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages for RHEL
> that they don't truncate or eliminate the Git
-1 for this change.
I will ignore it if it's accepted.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
>
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This proposal will only
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering
97 matches
Mail list logo
