On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
* View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for packages built for
Fedora. That is, I want to see a package on my Fedora system and be able to
visit its dist-git repo to see how it's packaged.
* Make the lookaside cache optional. For SourceX lines, I want to be
specify a git URL to a specific tag. fedpkg should use git archive to
include that in the SRPM. e.g.:
Yes. This is somewhat orthogonal to the dist-git / source-git
question. It would be absolutely great to have this right now on top of
dist-git, so we don't need to do the step of 'amend Source0, spectool -g,
fedpkg new-sources, git commit'.
* If we offer the above, honor signed git tags for verification at
* Make PatchX lines optional. In dist-git, I should be able to set a remote
pointing to the upstream repo. Then do the Fedora work on the appropriate
Fedora branch. SourceX should still become a tarball using git archive and
the tag. Patches should be automatically generated for SRPM construction
using git format-patch or something comparing the Fedora dist-git branch
with the remote branch.
Hmm, but if we specify a git ref as source, why bother with patches at all?
The step of generation and application of patches is error-prone, and if
have a git ref, we have the tree object linked to it, and we should unpack
that as the source dir without any further ado.
Multiple remotes should be possible should new and
old versions of the upstream project need to be supported. Fedora dist-git
branches should know their remote.
* I still want to be able to do 'fedpkg srpm' and get a standalone
ready-to-build SRPM file that I can carry around.
* Possibly extend fedpkg to helper package maintainers submit patches from the
package to the upstream project.
Is 'fedpkg' the best place for this? Submitting PRs from a git branch
is a very generic thing, and there's plenty of tools to do that already.
And those tools might even be forge-specific. E.g. github has hub and now
an official gh tool, and it's unlikely that fedpkg will ever do github PRs
as well as gh. And when fedora patches are just a branch, then the generic
tool can be used.
PRs in dist-git would be more meaningful to me if we were able to
upstream repo as a remote in dist-git and our branches just an extension of
Me likes. This would solve the perennial problem of "should I abuse
proven-pakcager privs to do 'fedpkg new-sources' before submitting a
PR?", which has two bad answers: "yes, and annoy the maintainer by
polluting the cache if the PR is rejected", and "no, and have all CI