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 E
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 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packa
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 21:11 +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
>>
>> > If you have patches that apply at different levels, you can't use
>> > it,
>> > unless there's a trick I don't know about.
>>
>> My patches are all -p1 as taught
On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 21:11 +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
>
> > If you have patches that apply at different levels, you can't use
> > it,
> > unless there's a trick I don't know about.
>
> My patches are all -p1 as taught by ancient rpm lore, but sometimes I
> mix patches from other o
De: "Adam Williamson"
On Sat, 2017-12-09 at 13:34 +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
>> I don't have a good history with %autosetup :) It tends to hate the patches
>> I produce.
> Did you know you still can/have to pass it a prefix level? That tripped
> me up for a while. For most cases,
On Sat, 2017-12-09 at 13:34 +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> I don't have a good history with %autosetup :) It tends to hate the patches I
> produce.
Did you know you still can/have to pass it a prefix level? That tripped
me up for a while. For most cases, you want:
%autosetup -p1
If
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 -- devel@lists.
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 devel-le...
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,
unli
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 h
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, whic
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 "just
>> work" is when a spec
On 12/11/2017 12:51 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
De: "Panu Matilainen"
Hi Panu,
Kudos for work on reducing repetitive complex error prone cruft in specs!
Thanks!
But don't override %setup. There's no need for such abuse
It is really pretty safe, the macro controls the download
On 12/11/2017 12:51 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
De: "Panu Matilainen"
and allows you to %autosetup underneath on versions where macro arguments are
expanded (rpm >= 4.14)
Interesting, are the changes described somewhere? Not that I want to break
compat with el7 from the startup
>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 th
De: "Panu Matilainen"
Hi Panu,
> Kudos for work on reducing repetitive complex error prone cruft in specs!
Thanks!
> 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
On 12/08/2017 08:03 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Hi,
I am proposing for inclusion a macro set aimed at automating the packaging of
forge-hosted projects.
— Packaging draft:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation
— FPC ticket: https://pagure.io/pack
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 09:33:17AM +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> Since I'm a nice person I added GitLab support this morning (both
> gitlab.com and hosted gitlab). Releases are clearly an afterthought
> in GitLab, they depend on free-form tags and can't be used in rpm
> without knowin
De: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> Impressive! I just tested this on some random package using github and
> everything works great.
Thanks for the nice feedback
> Would it be possible to drop the requirement to have "/" at the end
> of a github URL? I think it's natural to paste the URL withou
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:03:48PM +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am proposing for inclusion a macro set aimed at automating the packaging of
> forge-hosted projects.
>
> — Packaging draft:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation
> — FP
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 3:33 AM, wrote:
>
> Since I'm a nice person I added GitLab support this morning (both gitlab.com
> and hosted gitlab). Releases are clearly an afterthought in GitLab, they
> depend on free-form tags and can't be used in rpm without knowing the
> corresponding hash (so wo
De: "Matthew Miller"
Hi
> Could open-source solutions pagure.io and gitlab.com be added, please?
Since I'm a nice person I added GitLab support this morning (both gitlab.com
and hosted gitlab). Releases are clearly an afterthought in GitLab, they depend
on free-form tags and can't be used in
De: "Matthew Miller"
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:03:48PM +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
>> I am proposing for inclusion a macro set aimed at automating the packaging
>> of forge-hosted projects.
> Also, is "forge" synonymous with "git hosting service" as used here?
Here a "forge" is p
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:03:48PM +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> I am proposing for inclusion a macro set aimed at automating the packaging of
> forge-hosted projects.
Could we be more specific about what "forges" are supported? I see
github and googlesource.com in the examples, but
Hi,
I am proposing for inclusion a macro set aimed at automating the packaging of
forge-hosted projects.
— Packaging draft:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation
— FPC ticket: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 (without the
“hasdraft” tag becaus
26 matches
Mail list logo