Thank you Mikel, indeed, for keeping helm available in Fedora.
On 7/30/24 9:02 AM, Davide Cavalca wrote:
On 2024-07-27 09:03, Davide Cavalca wrote:
Hey folks,
I have orphaned golang-helm-3. The package currently fails to build
due to broken dependencies, and in general it's been p
On 2024-07-27 09:03, Davide Cavalca wrote:
Hey folks,
I have orphaned golang-helm-3. The package currently fails to build
due to broken dependencies, and in general it's been pretty painful to
keep in working shape. While it'd be nice to continue having Helm in
Fedora, I don'
I created a vendored version with different name to replace
golang-helm-3 if approved:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2300201
Regards,
Mikel
Hau idatzi du Davide Cavalca (dcava...@fedoraproject.org)
erabiltzaileak (2024 uzt. 27(a), lr. (18:04)):
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I h
Hey folks,
I have orphaned golang-helm-3. The package currently fails to build due
to broken dependencies, and in general it's been pretty painful to keep
in working shape. While it'd be nice to continue having Helm in Fedora,
I don't think this is maintainable in its current
Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.23
Discussion Thread -
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f41-change-proposal-golang-1-23-system-wide/118631
This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux.
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals
On Tue Apr 2, 2024 at 17:16 +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
> Hi Maxwell & Go SIG,
Hi Dan,
Thank you for reaching out!
> we have recently started working on introducing a bundled() provides
> generator for golang in openSUSE and found a very simple solution using
> the output of `go
Hi Maxwell & Go SIG,
we have recently started working on introducing a bundled() provides
generator for golang in openSUSE and found a very simple solution using
the output of `go version -m /path/to/binary` [1]
The solution is of course only that simple, because we build more or
less al
I have decided to orphan golang-github-apache-arrow.
--
Mike
:wq
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en
In order to preserve my energy as I maintain hugo and its multitude of
Go dependencies, I have decided to deactivate Hugo's deploy feature.
This means I can drop the need for golang-gocloud, which I will also
orphan.
The golang-gocloud package has been hard to maintain for some time. It
reli
ing Committee.
== Summary ==
Update of Go (golang package) to the upcoming version 1.22 in Fedora 40.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:alexsaezm| Alejandro Sáez Morollón]]
* Email: a...@redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
Update of Go (golang package) to the upcoming version 1.22 in Fedora
40. Go 1.22
m trying to update go-task for some time now and consistently getting
> a build error/failure with no clear indication of what's happened:
>
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fuller/test-builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06508072-golang-github-task/builder-live.log.gz
>
Oct 11, 2023, 14:02 by ful...@fedoraproject.org:
> I am trying to update go-task for some time now and consistently getting a
> build error/failure with no clear indication of what's happened:
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fuller/test-builds/fedora-rawhide-x8
I am trying to update go-task for some time now and consistently getting
a build error/failure with no clear indication of what's happened:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fuller/test-builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06508072-golang-github-task/builder-live.log.gz
Is it pos
gt; back during the golang scramble after an unresponsive maintainer.
> I don't have the time or the interest (or the technical chops) to
> maintain them.
>
> Obviously these are important packages, so at this time I am announcing
> my intention to orphan them.
> Unless I hear f
Hi Mark,
Hau idatzi du Mark E. Fuller (ful...@fedoraproject.org) erabiltzaileak
(2023 urr. 7(a), lr. (12:22)):
>
> Hi all,
>
> I picked up a number of prometheus packages (see below) a few months
> back during the golang scramble after an unresponsive maintainer.
> I don'
Hi all,
I picked up a number of prometheus packages (see below) a few months
back during the golang scramble after an unresponsive maintainer.
I don't have the time or the interest (or the technical chops) to
maintain them.
Obviously these are important packages, so at this time
I'd like to offer to swap reviews to get golang-github-nats-io-jwt-2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237326 into Rawhide
We already have v1 and attempting to update that package in order to
upgrade the nats stack led to some breakage and headaches a few months ago
Thank
Hi Fabio, Robert-André,
Thank you for the explanation. It makes sense.
Golang has this uniqueness about libs that removes some of the shared
objects pros but I see there are other things at play.
Thank you,
Carlos.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 1:44 PM wrote:
> On 7/20/23 8:20 PM, Carlos Rodrig
On 7/20/23 8:20 PM, Carlos Rodriguez Fernandez
wrote:
Hi all,
I am interested in packaging some golang programs for Fedora (and EPEL), and I read through
the guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/
<https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packag
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 8:22 PM Carlos Rodriguez Fernandez
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am interested in packaging some golang programs for Fedora (and EPEL), and
> I read through the guidelines:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/
>
> My qu
Hi all,
I am interested in packaging some golang programs for Fedora (and EPEL),
and I read through the guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/
My question is more about the reasoning for the recommended handling of
dependencies.
Other language platforms
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 01:02:20PM +0200, Mikel Olasagasti wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> TL;DR: Would it be possible to untag
> golang-github-nats-io-jwt-2.4.1-1.fc39[1] from rawhide?
Yes, but... we really try and avoid that if it's gone out in a compose.
If it's gone out, use
Hi all,
TL;DR: Would it be possible to untag
golang-github-nats-io-jwt-2.4.1-1.fc39[1] from rawhide?
Some days ago golang-github-nats-io-jwt was bumped from 1.2.2 version
to 2.4.1. The new version doesn't provide
"golang(github.com/nats-io/jwt)" and is causing a dependency chain
I'll try to push this along - there's a build error that needs resolving
(but not at 2:30 AM)
see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112130
Anyone from the golang list want to take a look?
-fuller
On 02/05/2023 19:25, Pat Riehecky wrote:
golang-github-prometheus-node-expo
golang-github-prometheus-node-exporter seems to be unmaintained at this point.
There are a few open CVEs that have been corrected upstream in the last year
but not made it down to the fedora package.
In Feb I opened a maintainer check ticket :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id
I just orphaned golang-github-exoscale-egoscale. I'm no longer
interested in maintaining it. It's up for grabs for any interested
parties. Do note that currently it fails to install in F39 [0]
because one of its dependencies was retired [1], so that will need to
be sorted out t
elease}
Requires: golist
+Requires: blocker
%ifarch %{golang_arches}
Requires: golang
Provides: compiler(golang)
Provides: compiler(go-compiler) = 2
-Obsoletes: go-compilers-golang-compiler < %{version}-%{release}
+Obsoletes: go-compilers-golang-compiler < %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{vers
On Fri Feb 3, 2023 at 02:00 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 02. 02. 23 17:06, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > # Create a blank ''blocker'' package that Conflicts with the to be
> > removed packages.
> > # Create a new Copr with the blocker package in its default buildroot.
> > This will simulate the actual r
On 02. 02. 23 17:06, Ben Cotton wrote:
# Create a blank ''blocker'' package that Conflicts with the to be
removed packages.
# Create a new Copr with the blocker package in its default buildroot.
This will simulate the actual removal of these packages.
Was this verified to actually work that way
== Definitions ==
* ''library only source package'' -- a component/source package that
only contains noarch golang ''*-devel'' subpackages.
* ''binary subpackage'' -- an arched subpackage that contains go binaries.
* ''source
Hi everyone!
Currently, golang ships the golang-race package, but this process is
going to get trickier with Go 1.20 due to this change:
The directory $GOROOT/pkg no longer stores pre-compiled package
archives for the standard library: go install no longer writes them,
the go build no longer
Hi Fedorians,
A recent PR reminded me that I never properly announced the new (well,
four months old) bundled() Provides generator for Golang projects[1].
This can be used to simplify generating these Provides when bundling is
justified in Fedora[2] or for (EP)EL. Simply mark the vendor
.
== Summary ==
Update of Go (golang package) to the upcoming version 1.20 in Fedora 38.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:alexsaezm| Alejandro Sáez Morollón]]
* Email: a...@redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
Update of Go (golang package) to the upcoming version 1.20 in Fedora
38. Go 1.20 is expected
Hello,
I need help to review the ORAS stack needed for Ariga and others:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2140707 Review Request:
golang-github-need-being-tree - Pretty print trees in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2140708 Review Request: golang-oras - Work with
OCI
18. syyskuuta 2022 13.31.24 GMT+03:00 zebo...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
>I haven't seen fpokorny active even when I started working on Go
>packages. Is there a way to reallocate all is Go packages to either the
>go-sig group or myself?
According to policy, they cannot be allocated to the SIG: "SIGs c
On 9/17/22 4:18 AM, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
Hi Tobias,
On Fri Sep 16, 2022, Tobias Zellner wrote:
> some weeks ago I opened the bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109630
I commented on your bug and submitted a fix.
> Since there is no response to this bug, and following your
Hi Tobias,
On Fri Sep 16, 2022, Tobias Zellner wrote:
> some weeks ago I opened the bug
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109630
I commented on your bug and submitted a fix.
> Since there is no response to this bug, and following your guide lines
> (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/
Hello all,
some weeks ago I opened the bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109630
Since there is no response to this bug, and following your guide lines
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/),
I opend Non-responsive maintainer ch
On 22/07/17 09:57PM, Maxwell G wrote:
> golang 1.18.4 was released a couple days ago. This release has fixes for
> 9 medium (rated by Red Hat Product Security) CVEs, so I will preform a
> rebuild in `rawhide` and `f36` to mitigate them[^0]. See
> https://groups.google.com/g/
I'm
not sure why I didn't think about it more when planning this.
I will still do the "Rebuild for golang..." changelog bump on rawhide for the
f36 mergable packages[^1], but I won't actually submit the builds to avoid
duplicating work and disrupting the F37 Mass R
d Gophers,
>
> golang 1.18.4 was released a couple days ago. This release has fixes for
> 9 medium (rated by Red Hat Product Security) CVEs, so I will preform a
> rebuild in `rawhide` and `f36` to mitigate them[^0]. See
> https://groups.google.com/g/golang-dev/c/frczlF8OFQ0/m/4lrZh5BHDgA
Hi Fedorians and Gophers,
golang 1.18.4 was released a couple days ago. This release has fixes for
9 medium (rated by Red Hat Product Security) CVEs, so I will preform a
rebuild in `rawhide` and `f36` to mitigate them[^0]. See
https://groups.google.com/g/golang-dev/c/frczlF8OFQ0/m/4lrZh5BHDgAJ
On 22/07/04 03:00PM, Maxwell G wrote:
> Later this week, I will be a doing a mass rebuild in F35 for all packages
> that
> require `golang` and provide binaries to mitigate the following CVEs
I completed the rebuild this weekend, but I realized that I probably
should provide an update.
Hi Fedorians and Gophers,
Later this week, I will be a doing a mass rebuild in F35 for all packages that
require `golang` and provide binaries to mitigate the following CVEs:
`golang` (affects all go binaries):
- CVE-2022-24675 golang: encoding/pem: fix stack overflow in Decode
- CVE-2022
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022, 16:46 Benjamin Beasley,
wrote:
> I imagine I could answer this myself by looking carefully at the history
> of the golang package, but what happens if you end up doing the mass
> rebuild with a pre-release version? Would you need to do a second mass
> rebuild wi
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 9:46:17 AM CDT Benjamin Beasley wrote:
> what happens if you end up doing the mass rebuild
> with a pre-release version? Would you need to do a second mass rebuild with
> the final version between the beta and final freezes?
Yes. as go binaries are statically linked, if
I imagine I could answer this myself by looking carefully at the history of the
golang package, but what happens if you end up doing the mass rebuild with a
pre-release version? Would you need to do a second mass rebuild with the final
version between the beta and final freezes?
The Beta
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 06:18:35AM +0200, Alejandro Sáez Morollón wrote:
>
>
> > On 16 Jun 2022, at 23:24, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 9:16 PM Richard W.M. Jones
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Why is this small language bump classified as a system-wide change?
> >
> > I bel
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 7:03 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> I have been asked to add support for Go external dependencies to Mock
>
>https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/919
>
> I tried to get the information from
>
> https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/languages/go/go-pac
I have been asked to add support for Go external dependencies to Mock
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/919
I tried to get the information from
https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/languages/go/go-packages.html
However, the information there seems to be outdated. "go
> On 16 Jun 2022, at 23:24, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 9:16 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> Why is this small language bump classified as a system-wide change?
>
> I believe it is the mass rebuild process requirement.
> __
Exactly. We need a mass rebuild so w
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 9:16 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Why is this small language bump classified as a system-wide change?
I believe it is the mass rebuild process requirement.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 04:54:14PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.19
Why is this small language bump classified as a system-wide change?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virt
.
== Summary ==
Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.19 in Fedora 37,
including the rebuild of all dependent packages(the pre-release
version of Go will be used for the rebuild if released version will
not be available at the time of the mass rebuild).
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:alexsaezm
Hi Mark,
Hau idatzi du Mark E. Fuller (ful...@fedoraproject.org) erabiltzaileak
(2022 api. 23, lr. (20:06)):
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking to submit a first golang package for review, but I'm running
> into some confusion as to whether there's a way to download/
Hi all,
I'm looking to submit a first golang package for review, but I'm running
into some confusion as to whether there's a way to download/import all
the linked source dependencies without having to package all of those
projects, too.
To make this more concrete:
My sp
As part of the golang-salsa-debian-vasudev-gospake2 0.2.1 update, the license
has changed from `LGPLv2+` to `MIT or GPLv3+`.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
PGP Key Fingerprint: f57c76e5a238fe0a628e2ecef79e4e25e8c661f8
PGP Keyserver: hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com
gotmax@e.email
On 1/21/22 00:27, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Tom Stellard:
If you maintain a golang package and you are seeing it fail with the error:
`flag provided but not defined: -Wl,-z,relro`
We can likely drop -Wl,-z,relro completely because it's the binutils
(both for BFD ld and gold).
I like h
* Tom Stellard:
> If you maintain a golang package and you are seeing it fail with the error:
>
> `flag provided but not defined: -Wl,-z,relro`
We can likely drop -Wl,-z,relro completely because it's the binutils
(both for BFD ld and gold).
T
Hi,
If you maintain a golang package and you are seeing it fail with the error:
`flag provided but not defined: -Wl,-z,relro`
This failure was caused by
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/166
It looks like it is affecting almost every golang package at the
Go 1.18 beta 1 is already in the rawhide branch, so I guess we won't need a
> second mass rebuild for golang.
> Regarding the Fedora 34 /35 impacting the decision. What happens if, for
> whatever reason, 1.18 breaks a lot of builds and we decide to push back the
> update.
&
t; But I'm not sure about how possible this is.
> >
> > Any suggestion is highly welcome :)
>
> Go 1.17 is already available for rawhide / f36, unless I am reading
> the state of the package wrong. So even if you do *nothing*, the f36
> mass rebuild will use Go 1.17. Howev
ggestion is highly welcome :)
Go 1.17 is already available for rawhide / f36, unless I am reading
the state of the package wrong. So even if you do *nothing*, the f36
mass rebuild will use Go 1.17. However, for f35 / f35, updating Golang
to 1.17 and rebuild almost ~2000 dependent packages in sta
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 3:14 PM Fabio Valentini
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > Note that this replaces the approved Golang 1.17 Change
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.18
> >
> >
> >
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> Note that this replaces the approved Golang 1.17 Change
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.18
>
>
> == Summary ==
> Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.18 in Fedora 36,
> including t
Note that this replaces the approved Golang 1.17 Change
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.18
== Summary ==
Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.18 in Fedora 36,
including the rebuild of all dependent packages(the pre-release
version of Go will be used for the rebuild if
Hello,
I've submitted a few packages I need reviewed. I'm happy to swap if anyone has
any pending reviews.
1) 1976038 - golang-github-sgreben-flagvar[1]
2) 1976041 - golang-github-peterbourgon-ff-3[2]
3) 1976414 - mqttcli[3]
1: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=197603
For context:
https://groups.google.com/g/golang-dev/c/hGwvCceDr14/m/wbyNWwgNBgAJ
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 9:02 PM Alejandro Sáez Morollón wrote:
>
> According to upstream, they are not going to deprecate GOPATH yet in this
> version.
>
> I built etcd with 1.17beta1 and every
nges/golang1.17
>> == Summary ==
>> Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.17 in Fedora 35,
>> including the rebuild of all dependent packages(the pre-release
>> version of Go will be used for the rebuild if released version will
>> not be available at the time o
On 6/28/21 6:57 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.17
== Summary ==
Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.17 in Fedora 35,
including the rebuild of all dependent packages(the pre-release
version of Go will be used for the rebuild if released version
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.17
== Summary ==
Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.17 in Fedora 35,
including the rebuild of all dependent packages(the pre-release
version of Go will be used for the rebuild if released version will
not be available at the time of the
Same result as you after re-install a few days later, looks like some cache
issue...
Sorry for the noise, and thanks for your time!
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:41 AM Alejandro Saez Morollon
wrote:
> Did you figure it out?
> I installed the package from your COPR build and I can see the correct
>
Did you figure it out?
I installed the package from your COPR build and I can see the correct version:
```
Smug - tmux session manager. Version 0.2.2
```
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@
Hello,
I am trying to build a golang package in COPR, before opening the BZ for
inclusion into fedora.
go2rpm does almost everything, expect setting a LDFLAG needed for the
binary to display the appropriate binary version [1].
When I build locally using mock (with a default config), the binary
Go 1.16 enables by default modules. In fact, in 1.17, GOPATH is going to be
removed.
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/41330
If you are building RPM packages, go-srpm-macros not only contains useful
macros but it enables GOPATH.
___
devel mailing
Totally my fault. Rawhide branch contained stuff related to 1.16 release
candidates and I didn't properly check it.
The same thing happens in F34.
It should be already solved in rawhide and soon on F34.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraprojec
On 09/04/2021 15:36, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 08:49:39PM +0800, yanqiy...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I see some reports in FZUG community that this commit [1], supposed to
update golang to 1.16.2 in its changelog, didn't change its tarball or
n-v-r to new version
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 08:49:39PM +0800, yanqiy...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I see some reports in FZUG community that this commit [1], supposed to
> update golang to 1.16.2 in its changelog, didn't change its tarball or
> n-v-r to new version. And actually builds t
Hi folks,
I see some reports in FZUG community that this commit [1], supposed to
update golang to 1.16.2 in its changelog, didn't change its tarball or
n-v-r to new version. And actually builds to 1.16-2.
Is it intended to fo the upgrade or the commit is just a normal rebuild
with
* Elliott Sales de Andrade:
> Since this package is basically a copy of some sources in LLVM, this
> change is a reflection of the ongoing efforts to relicense LLVM to ASL
> 2.0, which are only partially complete.
I have asked about this before, and LLVM is not currently available
under the Apach
Since this package is basically a copy of some sources in LLVM, this
change is a reflection of the ongoing efforts to relicense LLVM to ASL
2.0, which are only partially complete.
--
Elliott
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To uns
On 06. 01. 21 12:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the 81 python3-rpm are backports from upstream.
The python3-rpm package is an EPEL7 only package and there will be no rebase.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 4:27 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that the 81 python3-rpm are backports from upstream. The 129
> patches for gcl seems to be upstream prerelase patches. When upstream makes
> the
> next release, no "rebase" is needed — those patches will be just d
- Original Message -
> From: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> To: "Jakub Cajka"
> Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 11:10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: Golang 1.16 (System-Wi
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:07:40AM -0500, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> As a first order estimate, it's rather straightforward to grab the
> spec tarball and count the number of Patch lines in each one (which
> ignores any fanciness with Lua or conditionals, and doesn't really say
> if they are
ora"
> > >
> > > Cc: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:45:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: Golang 1.16 (System-Wide Change proposal)
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:40 PM Robbie H
; > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:45:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: Golang 1.16 (System-Wide Change proposal)
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:40 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > >
> > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
> > >
> &
- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Boyer"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:45:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: Golang 1.16 (System-Wide C
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:40 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:19:16PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.16
> >>
> >> == Summary ==
> >> R
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:19:16PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.16
>>
>> == Summary ==
>> Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.16 in Fedora 34,
>
> No complaint about t
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:19:16PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.16
>
> == Summary ==
> Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.16 in Fedora 34,
No complaint about the Change, but...
can we please stop saying "rebase"?
Tha
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.16
== Summary ==
Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.16 in Fedora 34,
including the rebuild of all dependent packages(the pre-release
version of Go will be used for the rebuild if released version will
not be available at the time of the
inting/ipp-usb' is quite ugly -
is there a predefined golang macro for such path? Or a best practice?
You do not need that at all in most of the spec, the usual workdir is
the root of the upstream zip. The complex path you posted is (painfully)
symlinked to keep go tools happy in GOPATH mode,
rules
> %{buildroot}%{_udevrulesdir}
>
> but '%{gobuilddir}/src/github.com/OpenPrinting/ipp-usb' is quite ugly -
> is there a predefined golang macro for such path? Or a best practice?
>
Well, you should have %{goname} defined at the top that matches at
least part of that.
But yo
1-ipp-usb.rules.
I managed to package those files with following install command e.g.:
install -m 0644 -vp
%{gobuilddir}/src/github.com/OpenPrinting/ipp-usb/systemd-udev/*.rules
%{buildroot}%{_udevrulesdir}
but '%{gobuilddir}/src/github.com/OpenPrinting/ipp-usb' is quite ugly -
is there a pr
Hi,
golang-github-logrusorgru-aurora changed license from WTFPL to Unlicense.
Best regards,
Robert-André
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of
have switched to using bundled dependencies for syncthing ~years ago
already, and I do not have the time nor the energy to do the amount of
work that would be necessary to un-bundle everything again. The
following packages are now orphaned:
- golang-github-calmh-du
- golang-github-calmh-xdr
- g
Note that this proposal was prepared prior to the deadline, but due to
an error in wiki formatting, it did not appear in the queue.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 9:40 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.15
>
> == Summary ==
> Rebase of Golang pack
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.15
== Summary ==
Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.15 in Fedora 33,
including rebuild of all dependent packages(pre-release version of Go
will be used for rebuild, if released version will not be available at
the time of the mass rebuild
cies for syncthing ~years ago
> already, and I do not have the time nor the energy to do the amount of
> work that would be necessary to un-bundle everything again. The
> following packages are now orphaned:
>
> - golang-github-calmh-du
> - golang-github-calmh-xdr
> - golan
1 - 100 of 275 matches
Mail list logo
