Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:11 AM, wrote: > Hi, > > Now the technical PR is submitted > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/go-srpm-macros/pull-request/1 > > and waiting for action from the go-srpm-macros maintainers, I took (quite a > long) time to refresh and flesh out the corresponding

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

I wish this message wasn't crossposted everywhere, but I don't want to lose any discussion by trimming the CC list. Sorry if replies generate bounces for some. > "nm" == nicolas mailhot writes: nm> And the forge macros are now available since nm> redhat-rpm-config-73-1.fc28 (I had missed

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

> "nm" == nicolas mailhot writes: nm> I don't know about EPEL6, but we use it as-is in EL7 and it works nm> just as well (except maybe for the %autosetup bits but IIRC that's nm> autosetup which is broken in EL7). I had ported autosetup to EPEL6 and then at the next release the macros

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

On mardi 30 janvier 2018 16:11:49 CET nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > Hi, > > Now the technical PR is submitted > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/go-srpm-macros/pull-request/1 > > and waiting for action from the go-srpm-macros maintainers, I took (quite a > long) time to refresh and

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:40 AM, wrote: > >> - Mail original - >> De: "Neal Gompa" > >>> I'm curious, what are you missing in the preamble ? As far as I can see >>> it's all there (even though some values >>> set to variables %gometa precomputes). I had it's right autogenerated some

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:54 AM, wrote: > > > - Mail original - > De: "Neal Gompa" > >>> 2. if your concern is that the *forge* macros are defective somewhere I'd >>> be curious where as you'd be the >>> first to report an actual technical problem. I've used them intensively in >>>

Re: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:00 AM, wrote: > > > - Mail original - > De: "Neal Gompa" > >> As long as I can do Obsoletes/Provides for the old name for the devel, >> unit-test, > > BTW is anyone using the unit-test packages? Right now I do not generate them, > I don't need them, and making

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: >> I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it: >> >> 1. This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their >> import path. My golang package (snapd) is not, intentionally so. I >> don't want to change this.

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune > wrote: > >> I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it: > >> > >> 1. This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their > >> import path. My golang package

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:45 AM, wrote: > > > - Mail original - > De: "Neal Gompa" > >>On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune >> I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it: 1. This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 2:11 AM, wrote: > Hi, > > I am proposing for inclusion a set of rpm technical files aimed at automating > the packaging of forge-hosted projects. > > - Packaging draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging > - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/734 >

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

> I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it: > > 1. This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their > import path. My golang package (snapd) is not, intentionally so. I > don't want to change this. > > 2. Mandating a forge is going to be tricky for self-hosted

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

Hi Jason, > > "nm" == nicolas mailhot wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts wrote: > > nm> And the forge macros are now available since > > nm> redhat-rpm-config-73-1.fc28 (I had missed the push due to > > upstream > > nm> renaming the file). Heartfelt thanks to Jason Tibbitts ! > > Please don't forget to

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

De: "nicolas mailhot" À: "Jan Chaloupka" >> I mentioned a list of things that you did not answer fully. Most important >> to me: >> - your macros do not generate build-time dependencies, which I see as >> one of the drawbacks. > Generating BuildRequires dynamically needs changes in rpm

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

De: "Jan Chaloupka" Hi Jan Apologies for the delayed answer, I was beating the PR into shape to address review comments. > Let's keep moving forward, > improving the infrastructure for other folks and pushing new ideas and > improvements into practical solutions. Let's move forward, I'm

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

Hi Nicolas, before I start arguing, I appreciate all your hard work on improving the Go guidelines, spending so much time explaining reasoning behind your decision. Also appreciating the effort on making the life easier for packagers, not just in the Go land, but throughout the distribution

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

ing > standards and practices for Fedora" <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 7:34:03 PM > Subject: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging > > > > - Mail original - > De: "Jakub Cajka" >

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Jakub Cajka" Hi Jakub, >> And I'm sure any >> attempt to strip the WIP bits from my side will be met with energetic >> protests. > Have you tried that? What make you assume that? I'm sure that if you do it in > constructive way, they will be accepted. My

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

standards > and practices for Fedora" > <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 3:27:01 PM > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging > guideline: More Go packaging > > > > - Mail original - > De:

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

ing > standards and practices for Fedora" <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 4:48:31 PM > Subject: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging > > > > - Mail original - > De: "Jakub Cajka" > > Hi

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Jakub Cajka" Hi Jakub > I think that it would be best if Nicolas could fold his proposal in to the > original draft as > optional part for simple library/binary packages. Frankly, that's a lot of work and churn, I don't want the new parts to be refused

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Jakub Cajka" > Our as Fedora or yours company/org? I believe that your contribution of those > in to Fedora will be much > appreciated. Our was meaning the set of specs we are preparing for inclusion. Can't really share them before the macros they depend on

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

ing > standards and practices for Fedora" <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 12:16:14 PM > Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging > guideline: More Go packaging > > > > - Mail original - > De: &quo

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Jakub Cajka" > I think one of the main responsibilities of Fedora packager is to work with > upstreams, help them > mature and generally improve their projects. Sure but expecting everything to be perfect and consistent before shipping anything just DOES NOT

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

ject.org> > Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 4:54:10 PM > Subject: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging > > On mardi 30 janvier 2018 16:11:49 CET nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Now the technical PR is submitted > > ht

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

ing > standards and practices for Fedora" <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 4:27:36 PM > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging > guideline: More Go packaging > > > De: "Jakub Cajka" > > Hi Jakub >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Nicolas Mailhot" > It's a bit of a Lego guideline, you assemble the spec blocs you need, and > ignore those you don't need. The > example was chosen to include as many blocks as possible, with the > walkthrough explaining their respective > functions. All the

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

Hi Robert André That's an interesting request I guess you can't figure if the example is for building binaries or Go libs, because there is no hard frontier between both cases in the proposed guidelines In Go, everything is effectively a code library that can be reused elsewhere. So the

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

De: "Jakub Cajka" Hi Jakub > I'm strongly against general unrestricted practice of compat packages as > proposed. If you need compat package you > need to work with usptreams on stabilizing the API/project, fork it, or just > use COPR as your projects(or its > dependencies) are not yet

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

ing > standards and practices for Fedora" <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 4:24:52 PM > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging > guideline: More Go packaging > > > De: "Jakub Cajka" > > >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

De: "Jakub Cajka" >> Filling upstream holes is pretty much the definition of an >> integrator/distributor role. In Go they are particularly numerous and deep, >> but Fedora users do want their docker and kubernetes (and Kubernetes, BTW, >> is astonishingly free of the problems that plague many

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

De: "Owen Taylor" > I'm embarrassed to admit that before I sent my mail I carefully read over > ... the old PackageDrafts/Go :-( My only excuse is that it was in my > browser history. NP, that gave you some context on where Fedora is today. > Having actually read the relevant parts of "More Go

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

ing > standards and practices for Fedora" <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 2:51:13 PM > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging > guideline: More Go packaging > > > De: "Jakub Cajka" > > Hi J

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

De: "Jakub Cajka" Hi Jakub, > It depends (as everything) on available manpower, if you are willing to own > your dependencies > you can package anything and everything debundled. Sure, but available manpower depends on how high the bar you put for people wanting to join, and right now this

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

Hi Nicolas, I'm embarrassed to admit that before I sent my mail I carefully read over ... the old PackageDrafts/Go :-( My only excuse is that it was in my browser history. Having actually read the relevant parts of "More Go Packaging", the explanation of compat packages and notification

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

ing > standards and practices for Fedora" <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 11:21:59 AM > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging > guideline: More Go packaging > > > > - Mail original - > De: "

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Owen Taylor" Hi Owen, > Is there a guide for Fedora packagers about how to handle unbundling for > golang packages? The draft guidelines don't seem to go into any details. I don't think there is, nor that it is necessarily needed. The posted guidelines should

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

standards > and practices for Fedora" > <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 6:50:21 PM > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging > guideline: More Go packaging > > Hi Nicolas, > > Is there a guide for Fedora packager

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

Hi Nicolas, Is there a guide for Fedora packagers about how to handle unbundling for golang packages? The draft guidelines don't seem to go into any details. I've looked at packaging a few golang packages unbundled, and have immediately run into: A) lots of unpackaged dependencies B)

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

>De: "Neal Gompa" > The only thing I see that might be missing is autogenerating > bundled(golang()) Provides when a vendor tree exists (with the > appropriate automatic filters on Requires). I had though a little about doing it but first, as many Go elements, vendoring relies on conventions

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

Hi, Now the technical PR is submitted https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/go-srpm-macros/pull-request/1 and waiting for action from the go-srpm-macros maintainers, I took (quite a long) time to refresh and flesh out the corresponding packaging guidelines proposal. It should be fairly complete

Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

De: "Jakub Cajka" > Very nice list, it would be nice to have it as sub-wiki page of guidelines. I > have took liberty to add > few points. Ok, I put it here so people have a place to work on it

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Jakub Cajka" Hi Jakub, >> For my part I doubt I'll ever use it in EL6 since I did it >> for Go and the EL6 Go stack is really too old for a merge to be interesting. >> Anyway I'll certainly let you know when I feel the time is right (but do not >> block on me!)

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

oraproject.org>, > "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" > <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 6:00:24 PM > Subject: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging > > I wish this message wa

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

oraproject.org>, > "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" > <packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:28:15 PM > Subject: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging > > > > ---

Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Jason L Tibbitts III" > "nm" == nicolas mailhot writes: >nm> And the forge macros are now available since >nm> redhat-rpm-config-73-1.fc28 (I had missed the push due to upstream >nm> renaming the file). Heartfelt thanks to Jason

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Neal Gompa" > For snipping, use "[...]" notation to indicate skipped stuff. It's > hard to tell otherwise. Ok, that was easy to fix :) -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ golang mailing list -- golang@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

> - Mail original - > De: "Neal Gompa" >> I'm curious, what are you missing in the preamble ? As far as I can see it's >> all there (even though some values >> set to variables %gometa precomputes). I had it's right autogenerated some >> parts of it in the past but it's all >>

Re: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Neal Gompa" > As long as I can do Obsoletes/Provides for the old name for the devel, > unit-test, BTW is anyone using the unit-test packages? Right now I do not generate them, I don't need them, and making them work with autodeps would be hairy (deploying

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Neal Gompa" >> 2. if your concern is that the *forge* macros are defective somewhere I'd >> be curious where as you'd be the >> first to report an actual technical problem. I've used them intensively in >> rawhide and el7 with many different >>rpm tools and

Re: Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

De: "Neal Gompa" >> The issue is that the new Go macros are tightly wound into the forge >> macros. I just want to be sure that we can leverage things like the >> dependency generators without all the other stuff. Hi Neal, >I should probably not let this pass without clarifying: > 3. if your

Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Neal Gompa" >On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune > >>> I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it: >>> >>> 1. This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their >>> import path. My golang package (snapd) is not,

Re: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

- Mail original - De: "Neal Gompa" Hi, Thanks for the review ! > I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it: > 1. This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their > import path. My golang package (snapd) is not, intentionally so. I > don't want to

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

Development discussions related to > Fedora" <de...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 4:04:19 PM > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More > Go packaging > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Neal Gompa <

Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

Hi, I am proposing for inclusion a set of rpm technical files aimed at automating the packaging of forge-hosted projects. - Packaging draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/734 - go-srpm-macros RFE with the technical files:

Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

Hi, I am proposing for inclusion a set of rpm technical files aimed at automating the packaging of forge-hosted projects. — Packaging draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging — https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/734 — go-srpm-macros RFE with the technical files:

Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

Hi, I am proposing for inclusion a set of rpm technical files aimed at automating the packaging of forge-hosted projects. — Packaging draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging — https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/734 — go-srpm-macros RFE with the technical files: