----- Original Message ----- > From: "nicolas mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Jason L Tibbitts III" <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: golang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" <packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:28:15 PM > Subject: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jason L Tibbitts III" > > >>>>> "nm" == nicolas mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 Tibbitts ! > > > Please don't forget to let me know when it's time to start thinking > > about pushing this down to F27. And maybe F26. And as far as I can > > tell it should work with only minor modification in EPEL7 (via > > epel-rpm-macros). > > I don't know about EPEL6, but we use it as-is in EL7 and it works just as > well (except maybe for the %autosetup bits but IIRC that's autosetup which > is broken in EL7). In fact it has probably been used more heavily in EL7 > than in fedora-devel so far. Maybe it also works in EPEL 6 but I've never > tried it. I guess it depends mostly on the level of lua support in EL6 rpm > and rpm-related tools now the forge macro code is lua only. I'm pretty sure > many of the problems in the early versions of the macro were due to non-lua > code and its interactions with lua code once the lua-ification started. > > It's a good idea to let people play with it in fedora-devel maybe a month, in > case I missed something, but from a technical POW I'm prety sure it could be > merged up to EL7 now. I'll submit fedora-devel specific tweaks later (just > like I submitted bitkeeper.org support today), right now the code is > distro-agnostic. 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!) If we are talking about EPEL6 stack, it is fairly fresh(1.9.2) and stable(it will be on 1.9 for whole of its upstream support), although Go packaging macros are missing. JC > > > Finally, we should also talk about whether there is any integration or > > automation possible between fedpkg and specfiles configured with these > > macros. > > I'm afraid my knowledge of recent fedpkg enhancements is too sparse to be of > any use there. Though I'm not opposed to the idea at all. > > Thanks again! > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
