https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255786 --- Comment #4 from Sandro <gui1ty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #3) > (In reply to Sandro from comment #2) > > My first thought glancing over the spec file: > > > > > # We use the GitHub archive instead of the PyPI sdist to get CHANGELOG.md and > > > # the tests. > > > Source: %{url}/archive/%{version}/argparse_dataclass-%{version}.tar.gz > > > > Doesn't that scream `%forgesource`, pretty please with sugar on top? > > You know, I personally find that it’s not worth defining %forgeurl and > adding %forgemeta just to simplify the source URL and avoid writing out the > extraction directory name for %autosetup. There is just as much noise added > to the spec file as is removed, and at the cost of an extra layer of > indirection. I do find the forge macros can be worth it for forges with much > less straightforward URL schemes (GitLab), and perhaps when frequently > alternating between snapshots and proper releases. > > I’m not opposed to the general NeuroFedora habit of adding forge macros or > to working on packages that use them. I just don’t *personally* find that > they add much in straightforward cases like this. I guess this boils down to a matter of personal preferences. I quite like just throwing the URL in the spec and maybe a tag and let the forge macros do their magic. If needed, a `-v` or `rpmspec --parse` will let me peek under the hood. I promise I'll try being a bit less noisy when it comes to forge macros next year. ;) > > It would also let you do away with `%autosetup -n > > argparse_dataclass-%{version}` in favor of `%forgeautosetup`. > > On the other hand, considering the comments in > > > https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/forge-srpm-macros/tree/ > 354ce4a51e80f6d524084d49612d77e69336cb71/item/rpm/macros.d/macros.forge#L65 > > about possibly removing %forgeautosetup in the future, this is probably > better written as > > %autosetup %{forgesetupargs} Ouch! I don't like the look of that. The comment reads "this will probably be removed since it is unsafe in presence of multiple sources". Assuming `%autosetup` is safe in presence of multiple sources. How can `%forgeautosetup` be unsafe in the same situation? It already calls `%autosetup %{forgesetupargs}` under the hood. On a different note, I find it amusing that people actually scroll through the code for information / documentation. I had a PR on one of my packages a couple of days ago, fixing an issue with `%forgesource` being wrong for a GitHub project that did not have it's version munged (tag == version). I was pointed to a comment in the source code, explaining the issue. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255786 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202255786%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
