Le 2019-03-10 23:17, Neal Gompa a écrit :
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:13 PM Miro Hrončok
<mhroncok(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi, I've just realized that %dist is defined to:
>
> %{?distprefix}.fc30%{?with_bootstrap:~bootstrap}
>
> That effectively means that using %bcond_without bootstrap, the dist
> is changed
> to .fc31~bootstrap.
>
> Is this something that we actually want? E.g. I was quite surprised by
> the behavior.
>
> Reading
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/818
> gives me an impression that the packaging committee didn't really
> approve nor
> forbid this, so I'm looking for recommendation.
>
> When I bootstrap, should I manually bump the release number or let
> this magic
> happen?
Let the magic happen. Embrace it, and it will help you. 😁
>
> Also, how do I opt-out from this behavior (other than renaming my
> conditional)?
>
I don't think you can unless you rename your conditional. This part
was kinda added for Go things by Nicolas Mailhot. 🤷♂️
I plead not guilty, I'm responsible for the distprefix addition (for the
forge macros, not just Go packages), not the bootstrap one :)
Many kuddos to the people who wrote the bootstrap part, more automation
is always good.
Now, if I *had* written the bootstrap part, I would have packed it
inside a distpostfix, to keep dist construction under packager contol.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot