Re: New Go Packaging Guidelines landed in rawhide (koji) today

[Jakub Cajka]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nicolas Mailhot" 
> To: "Jakub Cajka" 
> Cc: [e-mail], "Development discussions related to Fedora" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 11:23:34 AM
> Subject: Re: New Go Packaging Guidelines landed in rawhide (koji) today
>
> Le 2019-06-12 10:39, Jakub Cajka a écrit :
> > > Fedora’s new Go packaging macros landed in rawhide (koji) today.
> >
> > I thought that we have agreed on Go SIG meeting with eclipseo to do
> > this in side tag along with golang rebase(to avoid 2 rebuilds),
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Adopt_new_Go_Packaging_Guidelines#Sum...
>
> “ This proposal consists of:
>      Packaging the new Go macros: go-rpm-macros
>      Getting the Guidelines approved by the FPC
>      Updating all Go libraries with the new macros
>      Mass-rebuilding all the Go package in a side tag ”
>
> You complain that step 3 and 4 are separate, but that’s how it was
> planed from the start up and approved in the change page.
>
> You're conflating merging two mass Go package rebuilds (one for the new
> Go compiler, and another for the new, and first, Go packaging
> guidelines) with merging step 3 and 4 (which would have had other
> drawbacks, that were never discussed, because that's not how we planed
> things).
>
> And BTW it was already so in
> https://pagure.io/GoSIG/go-sig/issue/20 6 months ago (though this page
> is obsolete, you made us rewrite the plan in so many formats over time
> I've lost track or what is up to date or not. The change page is up to
> date, it’s the most recent rewrite)

I guess that we have not agreed on the SIG meeting then. I don't complain and this is not in any ways personal, keep it on mind please. The change proposal predates that SIG discussion as other bit predates the change proposal. I'm pointing out that we could have avoided any breakage if we did few thing slightly differently. Currently by your actions there are several FTBFS packages, it is not really a serious issues(as I'm sure that eclipso will fix up all the packages that need it in time for Fedora 31, kudos for committing for that work :)) but it is unnecessary and avoidable inconvenience that I(and I guess others too) will have to account for(spend some time on). In my case preparing for Go rebase(I do scratch rebuilds). One of the points been also possibility to fit in the Go rebase in to that side tag, but after further discussion with eclipseo on Wednesday it will make more sense to use regular mass-rebuild for that(as I usually do) assuming that the side tag rebuild will conclude 1-2w prior to it(so I will be able to observe dist git in coherent shape).

JC
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> Nicolas Mailhot