----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason L Tibbitts III" <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu>
To: "nicolas mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net>
Cc: golang(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, "Development discussions related to Fedora"
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>,
"Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora"
<packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 6:00:24 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging
I wish this message wasn't crossposted everywhere, but I don't want to
lose any discussion by trimming the CC list. Sorry if replies generate
bounces for some.
>>>>> "nm" == nicolas mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> writes:
nm> And the forge macros are now available since
nm> redhat-rpm-config-73-1.fc28 (I had missed the push due to upstream
nm> renaming the file). Heartfelt thanks to Jason Tibbitts !
Please don't forget to let me know when it's time to start thinking
about pushing this down to F27. And maybe F26. And as far as I can
tell it should work with only minor modification in EPEL7 (via
epel-rpm-macros). I don't know about EPEL6, but we really should look
at it given some of the other discussions about specfile compatibility.
Some packagers wouldn't ever use it if it doesn't work everywhere.
I think that it would be great to land it also in the EPEL6/7.
JC
> Finally, we should also talk about whether there is any integration or
> automation possible between fedpkg and specfiles configured with these
> macros.
>
> - J<
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>