[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2013-04-09 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||lemen...@gmail.com

--- Comment #63 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
(In reply to comment #61)
> (In reply to comment #60)
> > I guess I will try my hand at packaging this.
> 
> All of us Cc:ed here will then be able to follow the new review
> request automatically.

Nope, unfortunately. This is a long-standing (for years) Bugzilla issue which
nobody is able to fix.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6LSqI09fMZ&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2013-04-09 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Adam Goode  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2013-04-09 22:19:07

--- Comment #62 from Adam Goode  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 950281 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xkini9rVHm&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2013-04-02 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #61 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
(In reply to comment #60)
> I guess I will try my hand at packaging this.

In which case, please start a new review request, and mark this one as a
duplicate. All of us Cc:ed here will then be able to follow the new review
request automatically.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=I0OPNsYZ91&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2013-03-31 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #60 from Adam Goode  ---
I guess I will try my hand at packaging this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Vb9fiB2I6y&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2013-03-06 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Kyle McMartin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||kmcmar...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kmcmar...@redhat.com

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=blS8pq3cLy&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-08-28 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #59 from Renich Bon Ciric  ---
is anybody working on this one?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-06-28 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #58 from Renich Bon Ciric  ---
ping

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-05-01 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Status Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-04-24 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
 CC|fedora-package-review@redha |package-review@lists.fedora
   |t.com   |project.org

--- Comment #57 from Jason Tibbitts  2012-04-24 20:17:17 EDT 
---
So what's the status here?  If someone else is going to submit their package
for review, they should do so in a new ticket and close this one.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-03-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #56 from Albert Strasheim  2012-03-15 14:20:02 
EDT ---
The two compilers have different aims.

I'm guessing here, but I think that after Go 1 we might see releases of the
Google version every few weeks, mostly with bugfixes and backwards-compatible
API enhancements. Many people will want to use these releases before the new
API features make it in into the slower release cycle of GCC.

Even more guessing: At some point in the distant future (a few years), there
will be a pre-Go 2 version of the Google compiler where they will try out new
language features before implementing it in the GCC version.

http://blog.golang.org/2011/10/preview-of-go-version-1.html

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-03-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #55 from Dan HorĂ¡k  2012-03-15 12:51:30 EDT ---
Just a question - is there a need for another go compiler when one is already
in gcc?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-03-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #54 from Albert Strasheim  2012-03-15 12:12:11 
EDT ---
A few ideas:

Since godoc needs all the source, I was thinking of splitting off a go-doc
package that has the godoc binary and the sources.

As far as I understand, cross-compiling is easy these days, so we could build:

default packages:

go.i686 <-- contains 386 packages and 8g, 8c, 8l
go.x86_64 <-- contains amd64 packages and 6g, 6c, 6l
go.armv5tel <-- contains arm packages and 5g, 5c, 5l, GOARM=5
go.armv7hl <-- contains arm packages and 5g, 5c, 5l, GOARM=6

and then all the cross-compilers. maybe it's not necessary to build all
combinations.

go-amd64.i686 (useful for testing cross-compiler building infrastructure)
go-386.x86_64 (useful for testing cross-compiler building infrastructure)

go-armv5tel.i686
go-armv5tel.x86_64

go-armv7hl.i686 (or we could call this go-arm6?)
go-armv7hl.x86_64

go-armv5tel could be called go-arm5.

go-armv7hl could be called go-arm6.

Feedback please?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-03-14 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #53 from Renich Bon Ciric  2012-03-14 
19:12:27 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #51)
> The Go 1 release is approaching. Any updates here?
> 
> I am thinking of putting together a spec file so that multiple versions of the
> Go SDK can be installed in parallel. It will allow users to switch between 
> them
> using alternatives like you can when multiple Java SDKs are installed.
> 
> It would make it easy to test out weeklies in between stable releases of Go 1.
> 
> We could then also package extra stuff like go.crypto, goprotobuf, etc. to 
> work
> with the releases they are compatible with.
> 
> Potentially this could also allow switching between a /usr/bin/go that uses
> gccgo instead of [568]g by default.
> 
> Another thought: it would be useful to make an ARM package for the Fedora ARM
> on Raspberry Pi effort.

Let me know how can I help. I can help co-maintaining this one. ;)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-03-14 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #52 from W. Michael Petullo  2012-03-14 11:47:27 EDT 
---
Go for it. I have not had the time to update this proposed package in a while.
It sounds like you have some good ideas. I'd be happy to transition into a role
of reviewer.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-03-14 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #51 from Albert Strasheim  2012-03-14 02:58:49 
EDT ---
The Go 1 release is approaching. Any updates here?

I am thinking of putting together a spec file so that multiple versions of the
Go SDK can be installed in parallel. It will allow users to switch between them
using alternatives like you can when multiple Java SDKs are installed.

It would make it easy to test out weeklies in between stable releases of Go 1.

We could then also package extra stuff like go.crypto, goprotobuf, etc. to work
with the releases they are compatible with.

Potentially this could also allow switching between a /usr/bin/go that uses
gccgo instead of [568]g by default.

Another thought: it would be useful to make an ARM package for the Fedora ARM
on Raspberry Pi effort.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-02-07 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #50 from Renich Bon Ciric  2012-02-08 
01:01:44 EST ---
well, I'm definitelly interested in co-maintaining. W. Michael Petullo is
supposed to be the main maintainer... but hasn't published yet.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2012-02-07 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #49 from Albert Strasheim  2012-02-08 00:24:02 
EST ---
Anyone still working on this? There's been a lot of changes in the Go source
tree of late. A plan has to be made to package go.crypto, go.net, etc.
separately.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-08-31 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #48 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-08-31 15:04:15 EDT 
---
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go-r59-3.fc15.src.rpm

- Require glibc-devel.i686 on x86_64
- Do not try to build 64-bit on i686

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-08-31 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #47 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-08-31 11:46:45 EDT 
---
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go-r59-2.fc15.src.rpm

- Require mercurial to build

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-08-30 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #46 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-08-30 15:23:04 EDT 
---
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go-r59-1.fc15.src.rpm

- Updated to release.r59
- Use make.bash, not all.bash, to speed up build
- Build both 32- and 64-bit compilers
- Remove _smp_mflags and --build-id; broke build on F15
- Small formatting fixes

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-06-24 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #45 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-06-24 
21:26:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #44)
> > Probably from _smp_mflags?
> 
> That is correct. I had to remove "_smp_mflags" and "--build-id."
> 
> I also noticed that the RPM specification builds using "all.bash". "make.bash"
> is much faster because it does not run the extensive test suite. Should we use
> "make.bash"?
> 
> Finally, it might be nice to be able to install both the 32-bit and 64-bit Go
> compilers simultaneously. This is a bit odd, though I think it would be
> possible.

The docs separation is important too. Tell me what can I do to help.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #44 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-06-23 00:23:24 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #43)
>> I get the following error when trying to build the package. I think -j2 is
>> supposed to be a make argument; I can't find where it is being added to
>> quietgcc's command line.

> Probably from _smp_mflags?

That is correct. I had to remove "_smp_mflags" and "--build-id."

I also noticed that the RPM specification builds using "all.bash". "make.bash"
is much faster because it does not run the extensive test suite. Should we use
"make.bash"?

Finally, it might be nice to be able to install both the 32-bit and 64-bit Go
compilers simultaneously. This is a bit odd, though I think it would be
possible.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #43 from Jens Petersen  2011-06-22 20:19:55 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> I get the following error when trying to build the package. I think -j2 is
> supposed to be a make argument; I can't find where it is being added to
> quietgcc's command line.

Probably from _smp_mflags?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #42 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-06-22 16:57:40 EDT 
---
Something seems to have changed. Have you tried to build on Fedora 15 with GCC
4.6.0?

I get the following error when trying to build the package. I think -j2 is
supposed to be a make argument; I can't find where it is being added to
quietgcc's command line.

[...]
rm -f *.[568vq] parser.out peano.out tree.out


 making lib9 

quietgcc -I"/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/go-20110201.1/include" -j2 -ggdb -c
"/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/go-20110201.1/src/lib9/_p9dir.c"
quietgcc -I"/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/go-20110201.1/include" -j2 -ggdb -c
"/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/go-20110201.1/src/lib9/_exits.c"
quietgcc -I"/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/go-20110201.1/include" -j2 -ggdb -c
"/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/go-20110201.1/src/lib9/argv0.c"
quietgcc -I"/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/go-20110201.1/include" -j2 -ggdb -c
"/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/go-20110201.1/src/lib9/atoi.c"
gcc: error: unrecognized option '-j2'
gcc: error: unrecognized option '-j2'
make: *** [_p9dir.o] Error 1
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
make: *** [_exits.o] Error 1
gcc: error: unrecognized option '-j2'
gcc: error: unrecognized option '-j2'
make: *** [argv0.o] Error 1
make: *** [atoi.o] Error 1
make: *** wait: No child processes.  Stop.
error: Bad exit status from /tmp/rpm-tmp.8yRNJI (%build)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-05-17 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #41 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-05-17 
03:19:56 EDT ---
ping?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-04-06 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #40 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-04-06 
15:20:45 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> I would be happy to maintain this package. I maintain several Fedora packages
> and anticipate using Go a lot in the near future. I volunteer to be the 
> primary
> maintainer with Renich as a co-maintainer.

This would be awesome! ;)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-04-06 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #39 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-04-06 14:19:03 EDT 
---
I would be happy to maintain this package. I maintain several Fedora packages
and anticipate using Go a lot in the near future. I volunteer to be the primary
maintainer with Renich as a co-maintainer.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-04-06 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Renich Bon Ciric  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|needinfo?   |

--- Comment #38 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-04-06 
13:50:20 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> Just a question -- who'll be the primary maintainer of this package? I see
> specs from both Renich and Michael.

I'm a total newbie on this. I just got sponsored for synapse and libzeitgeist.
I have no objection on being co-maintainer.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-04-06 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|michel+...@sylvestre.me |nob...@fedoraproject.org
   Flag|fedora-review?  |needinfo?

--- Comment #37 from Michel Alexandre Salim  
2011-04-06 07:46:59 EDT ---
Just a question -- who'll be the primary maintainer of this package? I see
specs from both Renich and Michael.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-02-04 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #36 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-02-04 12:39:43 EST 
---
There has recently been some discussion on the golang-nuts mailing list about
packaging Go for Ubuntu and OpenSUSE. See
http://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/browse_thread/thread/a378126d7d061f0e
.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-02-02 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #35 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-02-02 
03:14:15 EST ---
For the sake of clarity, there's this:
http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=1239#c3

So, given that, what do you think about /usr/lib64/go/src?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-31 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #34 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-31 
23:09:19 EST ---
Another comment was that somebody should start drafting packaging guidelines.
If anybody in the list has some experience with this or has some pointers, I'm
willing to do the reading, thinking and writing necessary.

Please show me the way, Fedorian Masters! ;)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-31 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #33 from Jens Petersen  2011-01-31 20:40:31 
EST ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> About the name. It has been suggested on the #fedora-devel IRC channel that 
> the
> name could be golang.

That was me - maybe it was more a "reality check" question. :)

But having heard that there are many more potential packages
in the pipeline (http://godashboard.appspot.com/project?tag=cgo)
it maybe be good to use "go-" as a prefix for naming go libraries
and bindings perhaps.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-31 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #32 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-31 
19:26:23 EST ---
About the name. It has been suggested on the #fedora-devel IRC channel that the
name could be golang.

Can go devs input on this?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-31 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #31 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-31 
19:08:53 EST ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Is it really a good idea ask folks to report bugs directly to you via email in
> README.Fedora?  What happens if the package changes ownership?  How will any
> potential comaintainers see bug reports?  Will you run your own bug tracker as
> well?

Oh yeah, that...

For the time being, I have a temporal repo and that part of the readme is just
for the moment; if somebody installs it.

As soon as this review passes, I will remove that.

Sorry for not being clear about this.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-31 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #30 from Jason Tibbitts  2011-01-31 18:29:46 EST 
---
Is it really a good idea ask folks to report bugs directly to you via email in
README.Fedora?  What happens if the package changes ownership?  How will any
potential comaintainers see bug reports?  Will you run your own bug tracker as
well?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-31 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #29 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-31 
18:00:10 EST ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> I think the "godoc" command can provides documentation for go's commands also.

I have added info on this to README.Fedora

> I think it should be named emacs-go to conform with the Packaging:Emacs
> naming guidelines.

Yes; thank You. I've changed not only emacs but vim to reflect this:
emacs-go
vim-go

Please, review:
http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/go.spec
http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/go-20110120-6.fc14.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-28 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #28 from Jens Petersen  2011-01-28 07:08:15 
EST ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> > Many of the binaries are without manual pages or documentation. (Upstream?)
> 
> Yeah, upstream... let's see if it's possible to generate documentation.

I think the "godoc" command can provides documentation for go's commands also.

> > go-emacs.x86_64: W: no-documentation

I think it should be named emacs-go to conform with the Packaging:Emacs
naming guidelines.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-28 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #27 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-28 
04:49:33 EST ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> Thank you Renich. This version does indeed build in koji.
> 
> 
> rpmlint has a few complaints about it however.
> 
> go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/goinstall
> go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/ebnflint
> go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/gofmt
> go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/godoc
> go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/govet
> go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/goyacc
> go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/cgo
> go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/hgpatch
> 
> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 325 warnings.
> 
> The above errors should really be fixed,
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Staticly_Linking_Executables
> 
> A bunch of static libraries were built, and should be in a -static package
> rather than the main one if included at all.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries

Well, I'll see where your discussion with Ed Marshall culminates; not sure of
what to do.

> Many of the binaries are without manual pages or documentation. (Upstream?)

Yeah, upstream... let's see if it's possible to generate documentation.

> Trivial .spec fix?
> 
> go.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/go-20110120/progs/run
> go.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/go-20110120/prog.sh
> go.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/go-20110120/makehtml
> go.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/go
> go.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
> /usr/share/doc/go-20110120/codelab/wiki/test.sh

Done, I eliminated, for now, the executable files from docs and renamed
bash_completion/go to go.bash

> These subpackages should likely include a LICENSE file if nothing else:
> 
> go-emacs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> go-vim.x86_64: W: no-documentation

done.

Posted:
http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/go.spec
http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/go-20110120-4.fc14.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-27 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #26 from Ed Marshall  2011-01-27 20:56:22 EST 
---
The static libraries you're seeing are most likely the go runtime (used for
linking at compile-time). They're required to build anything useful with Go;
distributing them separately would just cripple the primary package. The Go
build system doesn't support building and linking packages (ie. the runtime) as
shared libraries yet, and according to Ian a few days ago, it isn't even on the
roadmap right now:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/LGk2Fw1EGY4/1UB88cSJClYJ

The statically-linked binaries you called out are actually written in Go, and
are not linked against system libraries, but are instead linked against the
static libraries above.

So in both cases, Go is behaving as designed. :) Remember, this is a complete
compiler toolchain, it's not a typical application.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-27 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #25 from d. johnson  2011-01-27 20:33:01 EST 
---
Thank you Renich. This version does indeed build in koji.


rpmlint has a few complaints about it however.

go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/goinstall
go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/ebnflint
go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/gofmt
go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/godoc
go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/govet
go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/goyacc
go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/cgo
go.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/hgpatch

4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 325 warnings.

The above errors should really be fixed,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Staticly_Linking_Executables

A bunch of static libraries were built, and should be in a -static package
rather than the main one if included at all.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries

Many of the binaries are without manual pages or documentation. (Upstream?)


Trivial .spec fix?

go.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/go-20110120/progs/run
go.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/go-20110120/prog.sh
go.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/go-20110120/makehtml
go.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/go
go.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/go-20110120/codelab/wiki/test.sh

These subpackages should likely include a LICENSE file if nothing else:

go-emacs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
go-vim.x86_64: W: no-documentation

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-27 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #24 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-27 
18:46:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Guys, for what is worth, here's a spec that builds.
> http://fedorapeople.org/~renich/go.spec

err... sorry, for the sake of order, I changed the location to:
http://fedorapeople.org/~renich/SPECS/go.spec
http://fedorapeople.org/~renich/SRPMS/go-20110120-3.fc14.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-27 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #23 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-27 
13:48:18 EST ---
Guys, for what is worth, here's a spec that builds.
http://fedorapeople.org/~renich/go.spec


Can somebody tell me what to do with the go/src dir? It seems applications
need, at least, the Make.inc and Make.pkg files in order to compile:

Example:
http://www.getwebgo.com/ (this one is used by other go projects as well)
  -> https://github.com/hoisie/web.go/blob/master/Makefile#L1

I could put it in /usr/share/go and add a symlink maybe? Or put the Make.* in
/usr/lib64/go/src ???

/me is a newbie packager!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-25 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #22 from Russ Cox  2011-01-25 09:55:28 EST ---
Ed, thanks for the note.  I've never used SELinux so I didn't
know even that much.  The current build script uses 
[ -d /selinux -a -f /selinux/booleans/allow_execstack ]
to decide whether to print the warning.  I will change it
to also test the exit status of selinuxenabled.

Thanks again.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-25 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #21 from Ed Marshall  2011-01-25 08:39:03 EST 
---
Russ, sorry for the very rudimentary question, but is SELinux actually enabled
on your slice? A quick "/usr/sbin/selinuxenabled && echo enabled" ought to
confirm.

(I spent a bit of time trying to get SELinux working with Slicehost's kernels a
year or two ago with the assistance of their support team, but without success.
These days, you can run your own kernel, but it looks like you're running one
of theirs with F10 right now.)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-25 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Russ Cox  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||r...@swtch.com

--- Comment #20 from Russ Cox  2011-01-25 07:03:58 EST ---
Are you sure the setsebool flip is necessary?
I don't know much about that functionality but I have found that
on a Fedora system running under Xen (on slicehost.com) the Go
installation prints a warning about setsebool but then runs just fine.

On that system:

$ cat /etc/issue
Fedora release 10 (Cambridge)
Kernel \r on an \m (\l)

$ uname -a
Linux [elided] 2.6.24-24-xen #1 SMP Tue Aug 18 18:15:39 UTC 2009 x86_64 x86_64
x86_64 GNU/Linux
$ 

I've been meaning to find out why the warning gets printed
without being necessary, but I haven't had time to dig in.
If there are any experts out there, I'd be happy to hear from them.

r...@swtch.com

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-24 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #19 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-25 
00:11:16 EST ---
Can somebody link this request to this bug, please?
http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=1280

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-23 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #18 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-01-23 14:35:31 EST 
---
The Go SELinux executable stack issue is documented here:

http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=47

As another issue, I am not sure what is causing this error:

/usr/lib/rpm/debugedit:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-3.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin/goyacc: Unknown
debugging section .debug_gdb_scripts

I don't see this when building locally, only with koji.

Apparently related, I also see:

$ gdb goyacc 
GNU gdb (GDB) Fedora (7.2-26.fc14)
Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later 
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
and "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu".
For bug reporting instructions, please see:
...
Reading symbols from
/home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-3.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin/goyacc...
warning: Loadable segment ".interp" outside of ELF segments
done.
Loading Go Runtime support.
(gdb

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-21 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #17 from d. johnson  2011-01-21 20:27:48 EST 
---
Your package really should not require execstack.

"The package maintainer can turn off execstack when linking the app by adding
"-Wl,-z,noexecstack" to the LDFLAGS (or CFLAGS) in the Makefile."

If you need more information, D. Walsh's blog is an excellent resource, or come
to irc ( #fedora or #fedora-selinux ) and it can be explained easier there.

Do not be concerned with the "invalid-url" one as much, because like you said,
it is built from a scm tag.


You can also run "rpmlint" upon your finished product.  I was unable to make it
build before, or I would have.


Example:

koji build dist-f14 --scratch --arch=x86_64 go-20101208-3.fc14.src.rpm


Then you can view the logs, fix any errors, and rpmlint the final product.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-21 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #16 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-01-21 17:42:55 EST 
---
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go-20101208-3.fc14.src.rpm

I'm not really sure how to handle the "setsebool -P allow_execstack 1" problem
because setting this on the Fedora build servers is probably not permitted.

> go.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Go

Any suggestions for a different summary?

> go.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 1)

Fixed.

> go.src: W: invalid-url Source0: go-20101208.tar.gz

This is generated from mercurial as noted in the comments.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-20 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #15 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-20 
23:56:26 EST ---
Also, keep in mind that go asks for: 

setsebool -P allow_execstack 1

Also, It's not building for me because it complaints about the build id; at the
debug info generation I think...


*** You need to add /builddir/build/BUILD/go-20101208/bin to your $PATH. ***
The compiler is 6g.
The binaries expect /builddir/build/BUILD/go-20101208 to be copied or moved to
/usr/lib64/go/.
+ exit 0
Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IrHtND
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ '[' /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64 '!=' / ']'
+ rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64
++ dirname /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64
+ mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT
+ mkdir /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64
+ cd go-20101208
+ LANG=C
+ export LANG
+ unset DISPLAY
+ install -d -m 755 /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin
+ install -d -m 755
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/lib64/go/
+ install -p -m 755 bin/6a bin/6c bin/6cov bin/6g bin/6l bin/6nm bin/6prof
bin/cgo bin/ebnflint bin/godefs bin/godoc bin/gofmt bin/goinstall bin/gomake
bin/gopack bin/gopprof bin/gotest bin/gotry bin/goyacc bin/hgpatch bin/quietgcc
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin
+ cp -pR pkg/ /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/lib64/go/
+ /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id
/builddir/build/BUILD/go-20101208
extracting debug info from
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin/ebnflint
/usr/lib/rpm/debugedit:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin/ebnflint: Unknown
debugging section .debug_gdb_scripts
*** ERROR: No build ID note found in
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/go-20101208-2.fc14.x86_64/usr/bin/ebnflint
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IrHtND (%install)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IrHtND (%install)
RPM build errors:
Child returncode was: 1
EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps
builddir/build/SPECS/go.spec']
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mock/trace_decorator.py", line 70, in
trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mock/util.py", line 317, in do
raise mock.exception.Error, ("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s"
% (command,), child.returncode)
Error: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps
builddir/build/SPECS/go.spec']
LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-20 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #14 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-20 
23:53:56 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Can you provide your output from rpmlint? I get:
> 
> $ rpmlint go-20101208-1.fc14.src.rpm 
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/share/rpmlint/rpmlint.py", line 364, in 
> main()
>   File "/usr/share/rpmlint/rpmlint.py", line 84, in main
> loadCheck(c)
>   File "/usr/share/rpmlint/rpmlint.py", line 68, in loadCheck
> imp.load_module(name, fobj, pathname, description)
>   File "/usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py", line 928, in 
> 'Your release tag must match the regular expression ' + release_ext + '.',
> TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'NoneType' objects

[renich@introdesk SPECS]$ rpmlint go
(none): E: no installed packages by name go
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[renich@introdesk SPECS]$ rpmlint go-20101208-2.fc14.src.rpm 
go.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Go
go.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore -> multicolor,
Multics, multichannel
go.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 1)
go.src: W: invalid-url Source0: go-20101208.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-20 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #13 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-01-20 23:33:59 EST 
---
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go-20101208-2.fc14.src.rpm

Added ed and bison requirement.

I am aware of the policy on static libraries. However, go *is* a development
package. So go-devel does not really make sence. For example, there is no
gcc-devel, and gcc ships /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.5.1/32/libgcc.a,
etc.

Can you provide your output from rpmlint? I get:

$ rpmlint go-20101208-1.fc14.src.rpm 
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/share/rpmlint/rpmlint.py", line 364, in 
main()
  File "/usr/share/rpmlint/rpmlint.py", line 84, in main
loadCheck(c)
  File "/usr/share/rpmlint/rpmlint.py", line 68, in loadCheck
imp.load_module(name, fobj, pathname, description)
  File "/usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py", line 928, in 
'Your release tag must match the regular expression ' + release_ext + '.',
TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'NoneType' objects

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-20 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

d. johnson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||drjohns...@gmail.com

--- Comment #12 from d. johnson  2011-01-20 23:18:16 EST 
---

The .spec file needs a little tweaking.

Add - BuildRequires: ed, bison

Without these, it does not build.


See also:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries

Additional formatting issues can be found from 'rpmlint go*.rpm'

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-19 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)|

--- Comment #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway  2011-01-19 
12:22:52 EST ---
Lifting FE-Legal

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-19 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #10 from W. Michael Petullo  2011-01-19 11:47:16 EST 
---
Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/go-20101208-1.fc14.src.rpm

New version contains split patent notes. I have updated the license to "BSD."

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-19 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #9 from Tom "spot" Callaway  2011-01-19 
10:29:48 EST ---
Upstream split the patent grant out of the copyright license in their source
control:

http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?spec=svnae87c054a037ab8de431ca7dff3d433ab54144da&r=1149e001c22afd0e88541ebf763a74bf7cc18ba6

So, if you update the package to at least that changelevel, it should be just
BSD, and there are no more legal concerns (that I am aware of).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2011-01-18 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Renich Bon Ciric  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ren...@woralelandia.com

--- Comment #8 from Renich Bon Ciric  2011-01-19 
01:09:37 EST ---
any word on this?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2010-11-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com

--- Comment #7 from Tom "spot" Callaway  2010-11-15 
09:04:00 EST ---
Emailed cdibona @ Google.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2010-11-14 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||michel+...@michelsylvain.in
   ||fo
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|michel+...@michelsylvain.in
   ||fo
   Flag||fedora-review?

--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim  
2010-11-14 17:43:02 EST ---
Will review once the legal situation is clarified. FWIW I think Google will be
willing to relicense; WebM was in this situation earlier on.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2010-11-14 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||182235(FE-Legal)

--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts  2010-11-14 10:29:14 EST 
---
If you want to ask legal questions, you need to make sure the legal folks see
them.  Adding FE-Legal blocker (or you can ask on the legal mailing list).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2010-11-14 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #4 from Brandon  2010-11-14 09:18:04 EST ---
I ran into the following issues.

1) Upstream didn't want it packaged. They don't have a stable 1.0 yet, was the
reason.

2) Time

Take over from me if you want. I'm busy doing ambassador work these days and
I'm a huge noob at packaging. Someone else would do a much better job.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2010-11-13 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

Ed Marshall  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||esm+red...@logic.net

--- Comment #3 from Ed Marshall  2010-11-13 22:45:09 EST 
---
http://golang.org/LICENSE

3-clause BSD, plus a patent grant and reciprocity requirement; can that be
listed as simply "BSD" per the licensing guidelines, or would legal have to
approve the modified version?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2010-11-13 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

W. Michael Petullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bran...@pwnage.ca

--- Comment #1 from W. Michael Petullo  2010-11-13 18:31:47 EST 
---
*** Bug 610934 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language

2010-11-13 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987

--- Comment #2 from W. Michael Petullo  2010-11-13 18:34:20 EST 
---
I presently list the license as "BSD-like" because I have not yet been able to
find the appropriate short form of Go's license. This is a place holder.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review