Hi,
> 4. There is a bug in EL7 that causes spectool not to process the resulting
> files. rpmbuild and mock work fine though. I
> added a -i switch to the macro that prints the resolved source url, you can
> then dump it in curl, wget or whatever in EL7.
> Alternatively, get someone to fix the
Hi
Anyway, to answer some of the questions posted during review and in:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2017-12-13/fpc.2017-12-13-18.00.log.html
1. I just posted the second part of the proposal (the Go-specific bits). Read
it there
On 12/11/2017 06:07 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Hi all,
Since most participants seems to be in favor of explicit %setup handling, I've
updated the wiki and the macro file
Thank you.
- Panu -
___
devel mailing list --
Hi all,
Since most participants seems to be in favor of explicit %setup handling, I've
updated the wiki and the macro file
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
De: "Panu Matilainen"
> On a more constructive note, I'd think conceptually this might better
> fit into %autosetup territory. Have you looked at extending that, rather
> than overriding/building something separate?
I've looked at it a bit, but apart the fact autosetup is an actual macro,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:23:19PM +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> Hi Neal,
>
> > And the issue you're having that requires %setupargs is not a problem
> > in RPM 4.14
>
> I don't have an issue with %setupargs, I have an issue with requiring
> packagers to change stuff in the spec
On 12/11/2017 02:23 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Hi Neal,
And the issue you're having that requires %setupargs is not a problem
in RPM 4.14
I don't have an issue with %setupargs, I have an issue with requiring
packagers to change stuff in the spec header *and*
at %prep level,
Hi Neal,
> And the issue you're having that requires %setupargs is not a problem
> in RPM 4.14
I don't have an issue with %setupargs, I have an issue with requiring
packagers to change stuff in the spec header *and*
at %prep level, which is not in the same place of the spec. That is something
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:57 AM, wrote:
>>De: "Panu Matilainen"
>
> Hi Panu,
>
>>> But don't override %setup. There's no need for such abuse
>
>> It is really pretty safe, the macro controls the downloaded file, the file
>> structure is known, the only time it won't
>De: "Panu Matilainen"
Hi Panu,
>> But don't override %setup. There's no need for such abuse
> It is really pretty safe, the macro controls the downloaded file, the file
> structure is known, the only time it won't "just
> work" is when a spec needs to call %setup several times (in that case
10 matches
Mail list logo