[go-rpm-macros] Issue #2: EPEL availability
by Nicolas Mailhot
nim reported a new issue against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following:
``
The macro code needs massaging to also work on EPEL.
Most of the work is spec side since some of the macros are going to collide with the ones provided by previous iterations of Go macro packages
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/issue/2
2 weeks, 6 days
[go-rpm-macros] Issue #3: %goprep should apply patches automatically
by Nicolas Mailhot
nim reported a new issue against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following:
``
`%goprep` should apply patches automatically, so there is no convenience gap with `%autosetup`.
This is generic work that should be done *redhat-rpm-config* side in forge macros and then reused in`%goprep`. Basically:
1. define a `patch_flags<suffix>` rpm variable holding the parameters that should be passed to `%patch<suffix>`
2. define a `default_flags<suffix>` fallback
3. define a `source_patches<suffix>` holding an ordered space separated list of patch suffixes associated with a particular forge/go source.
And then write the usual lua loops to apply it all at the right moment in the spec.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/issue/3
2 weeks, 6 days
[go-rpm-macros] Issue #36: Renaming BUILDTAGS and LDFLAGS to include GO prefixes
by Link Dupont
linkdupont reported a new issue against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following:
``
In #34 and #35, it was brought up to rename the `BUILDTAGS` variable to `GOBUILDTAGS` in order to be more explicit about the intended use of the variables and to avoid any potential namespace collision with other variables. I looked into what packages are using `BUILDTAGS` today to figure out how much of an impact a rename like this will have.
As of this writing, the following packages are using `BUILDTAGS` in some capacity:
```
buildah.spec
containernetworking-plugins.spec
cri-tools.spec
go-compilers.spec
golang-github-prometheus-node-exporter.spec
golang-github-prometheus.spec
grafana.spec
hugo.spec
moby-engine.spec
oci-seccomp-bpf-hook.spec
pack.spec
podman.spec
reg.spec
runc.spec
skopeo.spec
snapd.spec
source-to-image.spec
stargz-snapshotter.spec
syncthing.spec
weldr-client.spec
```
And the follow packages use `LDFLAGS`:
```
aerc.spec
age.spec
butane.spec
clash.spec
containerd.spec
doctl.spec
fzf.spec
geoipupdate.spec
git-lfs.spec
golang-github-aliyun-cli.spec
golang-github-colinmarc-hdfs-2.spec
golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi.spec
golang-github-hub.spec
golang-github-jsonnet-bundler.spec
golang-github-magefile-mage.spec
golang-github-prometheus.spec
golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs.spec
golang-github-tdewolff-minify.spec
golang-github-theoapp-theo-agent.spec
golang-mvdan-editorconfig.spec
ignition.spec
kiln.spec
micro.spec
open-policy-agent.spec
osbuild-composer.spec
rclone.spec
reg.spec
source-to-image.spec
syncthing.spec
tinygo.spec
vgrep.spec
weldr-client.spec
```
I identified these packages by grepping the contents of the [current spec tarball](https://src.fedoraproject.org/repo/rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz).
To avoid breaking these packages that are currently using `BUILDTAGS` or `LDFLAGS`, there are two possible approaches I see to safely rename the variables:
#### 1. Rebuild everything in a side-tag
Patch `go-rpm-macros` to rename `BUILDTAGS` and `LDFLAGS` to `GOBUILDTAGS` and `GOLDFLAGS` respectively. Then patch the above packages and stage them all in a side-tag to update them in one monolithic Bodhi update.
#### 2. Support both old and new variables at the same time
Patch `go-rpm-macros` to support **both** `BUILDTAGS`/`LDFLAGS` *and* `GOBUILDTAGS`/`GOLDFLAGS` simultaneously. Then patch the above packages over time until everything has been ported over to using `GOBUILDTAGS` and `GOLDFLAGS`, and then drop the old variables from `go-rpm-macros`.
I'm not sure how easy either of these approaches will be. They are both moving targets as new packages are constantly getting added. It might just be a constant effort to try and keep on top of all the patches as new packages come along and patches need to be rebased onto their target's changes.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/issue/36
2 weeks, 6 days
packaging sourcegraph cli -- any volunteers?
by Matthew Miller
I've been talking with the awesome people at Sourcegraph, and they're
interested in indexing our packages. Still working out what that'l look like
exactly, but I'm pretty excited about it. (They're an open-source company
with a SaaS product. Also at least some of their folks run Fedora Linux, so
that's extra cool.)
In our conversation, they mentioned that it'd be nice to have their
command-line tool packaged. Anyone interested in taking that on? Looks
pretty straightforward, although I'm not sure of any Go lang pitfalls that
might await.
https://github.com/sourcegraph/src-cli
(Also, we already have a package named `src`, which is a apparently and RCS
(!!!!?!?!?!) wrapper. So we'll need to figure out a different comand name;
maybe src-cli, maybe 'sourcegraph', dunno.)
They'd also be interested in having the actual search engine tool itself
packaged (https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph) -- but that's a bigger
project. (Still, volunteers welcome!)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
2 years, 4 months
