----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert-André Mauchin" <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: golang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" > <packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx 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 packaging guidelines > > proposal. It should be fairly complete now: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging > > > > I'd appreciate review to check if I have forgotten an important case, if > > people understand the text, if they have enhancements or corrections to > > propose, and so on. > > > Then I will push it FPC side again. > > > > Actual practice should be fairly simple and self-explanatory, the proposal > > length can be scary but that's because it documents all kinds of corner > > cases that required digging through specs and mailing lists to find > > resolution examples before. The basic Go packaging skeleton will be > > sufficient is most cases without requiring to read any documentation. > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Hello Nicolas, > > Could you add two full examples, one for binary package, one for library > package, like in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ > Go#Sample_RPM_Spec > > Putting it all together (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > More_Go_packaging#Putting_it_all_together) is nice but don't understand if it > is for a binary or a library. > > Also, is there any plan to update Gofed with these new guidelines? If it's > not > automated like today, we will lose time instead of gaining some in the end. > > Best regards, > > Robert-André > 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. As his proposal doesn't cover at least two major use cases, i.e. separate packaging of tests(they have no place in devel package as they artificially inflate build root size) and shipping pre-built shared libraries. Just my opinion, JC > _______________________________________________ > 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
