https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 --- Comment #39 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mark Goodwin from comment #38) > (In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #37) > > The diff between the very first spec in this review and what it is now is > > really impressive, well done. > > thanks once again Xavier You and Nathan deserve the thanks, you did the work, I only commented ;-) > > > > > More nitpicking, you're used to it now ;-) > > - Patch0 can probably be split in several pieces and part of them > > upstream'ed (manpages and file perms changes at least seem relevant) > > OK, I've split into 3 patches (see comments in the spec) > 000-grafana-fedora.patch could be split again (Oauth / file perms). The mostly noop 3rd part could be removed. 001-grafana-fedora.patch could also be split (distro defaults / manpages / Specs + webpack). 002-grafana-fedora.patch looks ok. Also, the patches can probably use more descriptive names (eg. grafana-6.1.3-fix_file_perms.patch, grafana-6.1.3-fix_oauth.patch, etc...) Most of the patches (all but 002 ?) need to be submitted upstream and the PR/issue URLs referenced in the specfile. Upstream will likely want fine-grained commits, so the above patch split will be needed anyway. ...snip... > > - There used to be Provides: bundled(..) for all the golang stuff in the > > bundle everything case (fedora <= 28 or EL <= 7). > > I think it should be put back in case you want to build for EL7 (I guess > > F28 doesn't really matter anymore). > > Those Provides would only ever be for EPEL7. I can put it back if you really > want, though for EPEL we'd only ever rebase to new upstream releases - and > grafana upstream updates the vendor'd golang sources whenever needed. So it > seems to me the spec pollution wasn't warranted and I removed it. > You are making the assumption that both upstream developers and downstream fedora packagers will be properly doing their duty forever. Although this is probably unlikely, this might not be a safe assumption. I understand adding 100+ lines to the spec is not very appealing, but I tend to think we'd rather be on the safe side. I would welcome more opinions on this, maybe I'm too pedantic. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
