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
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
mooz reported a new issue against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following:
``
I'm trying to build a golang package for EL7 but I'm unable to create a SRPM from a spec file after installing the go RPM macros. I'm receiving the below error:
```
rpmbuild -bs golang-github-jedisct1-clocksmith.spec
error: Bad file: /home/test/rpmbuild/SOURCES/%{archivename}.%{archiveext}: No such file or directory
RPM build errors:
Bad file: /home/test/rpmbuild/SOURCES/%{archivename}.%{archiveext}: No such file or directory
```
I thought maybe the issue was caused by the macros.forge file not being included in the latest EL7 build of redhat-rpm-config (as mentioned at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging#Testing_the_proposal) but trying to copy the file over from a later Fedora release didn't change the behavior.
Not too familiar with the entire process on Go packaging, is there something I'm missing?
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/issue/4
qulogic reported a new issue against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following:
``
In the old version of [golang-github-pkg-errors](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-…, there was a typo, and `glide.yaml` was listed twice in the sources. This meant that `glide.lock` was never copied to the source directory.
When `%goinstall glide.yaml glide.lock` was called later, it created a `glide.lock` _directory_. Now that I'm trying to fix it, it causes [an upgrade error](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f01a015bb7#comme… since rpm can't handle a directory->file change. So now I need to go throw in a scriptlet to fix the directory.
`%goinstall` should not accept an explicit path argument that does not exist, and should fail the build. If it really needs to be able to create arbitrary directories like that, it should be behind an explicit flag (like `install -d` is).
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/issue/7
nim reported a new issue against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following:
``
This is a clone of
https://github.com/gofed/go-macros/issues/56
The problem is actually in golist, not in the macros themselves. Sticking it in the macro project for now as they need to be switched to deploy in libdir if this is not fixed
According to @jcajka this needs fixing in any case, because other build options are handled the same way by the Go compiler, so deploying only the files corresponding to a particular set of options means sources can not be used with another one later. And we have some of those in Fedora, for example, optional selinux support in some container projects.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/issue/1
nim reported a new issue against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following:
``
To workaround https://pagure.io/golist/issue/7, the shell wrapper should switch to another directory (for example /usr/bin) before running `golist`, and switch back to the correct dir afterwards (so add strategic pushds popds to keep track of where the user, golist and the tests want to be)
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/issue/6
nim opened a new pull-request against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following:
``
make use of golist --with-tests in dynamic buildrequires
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/pull-request/14
Hi,
I just tagged golist 0.10.0 a little while back [1]. It fixes various
bugs and RFEs that were needed to finish implementing the Go macros.
I've also opened a Review Request for golang-pagure-golist [2], though
it will need some coordination with the original
/usr/bin/golist-providing package (go-compilers-golang-compiler) to
ensure no conflicts.
[1] https://pagure.io/golist/releases
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714090
--
Elliott
eclipseo opened a new pull-request against the project: `golist` that you are following:
``
Initialize load.Mod* variables in ListPackage...
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/golist/pull-request/19