So please, make the %forgeautosetup
compatible with the %gosetup again.
Once the %gosetup macro is functional again, we can discuss its
removal in favor of forgesetup as part of global announcement so all
go packagers have time to migrate to new macros.
For future reference, please don't change the forge macros in any way
that makes the go macros incompatible or broken until we have official
Go packaging guidelines and set of macros the go-sig community agrees
on.
Thank you Nicolas
> So, no biggie. Easy to fix. That's why such changes hit -devel before
> anyone dreams of queuing them to stable.
>
> What package exactly installs your gosetup macro in /usr/lib/rpm so I
> can see what other things it tries to do? I see no macro file in the
> Fedora gofed package manifests.
>
> If you could PR your changes to the official Fedora packages that
> coordinate Fedora go macros (the go-macros repository on github, that
> will be rehosted in pagure as soon as the @rh contributors ok the
> move)
> instead of doing it in other places, that would be a tad easier to
> coordinate.
>
>> Please revert this, we should be able to use whatever flag supported
>> by %setup and
>> %autosetup, not a small subset. How do you even pass the basic -n
>> flags now?
> So basically, you have a macro, which sole purpose is to pass
> precomputed -n values to *setup, and you want to use it with manual -n
> flags. Why? Could you tell us what exactly is the point of
>
> 1. wrapping a Fedora macro in another name just because you do not
> like
> the official macro name in Fedora
> 2. overriding the only thing this macro does over autosetup
> 3. and then complaining all the argument passing to autosetup does not
> work as you wish it does
>
> So all this complexity, because what you really want is to use
> autosetup
> directly. Then just do. What's the problem exactly with typing
> autosetup
> in your spec? No one stops you from doing it.
>
> One reason I removed the -n in forgeautosetup and forgesetup precisely
> to stop packagers confusing themselves the way you are confusing
> yourself.
>
> The other being -n is incompatible with the processing of multiple
> archives that many people asked me to add to the macros. Which is
> finally implemented after months of work. And which just hit rawhide
> after more than a month of review.
>
> So, do you have actual spec files in Fedora with this use of the
> redhat-
> rpm-config macros? If that is the case, I can put those flags in the
> macros so you can continue shooting yourself in the foot using
> undefined
> known-broken use patterns. If not, I'd rather remove the possibility
> altogether before someone harms himself.
>
>> With you mods, we have to edit hundreds of specs to remove
>> the -q flags.
> And that concretely, if why pre-generating specs instead of making the
> effort to include default processing in the macro code Fedora ships is
> wrong.
>
> Regards,
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org