Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging

[Jakub Cajka]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marcin Dulak" 
> To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" 
> Cc: [e-mail], "Development discussions related to Fedora" 
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 4:04:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: More Go packaging
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Neal Gompa < [e-mail] > wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune
> < [e-mail] > wrote:
> > > I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it:
> > > This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their
> > >
> > > import path. My golang package (snapd) is not, intentionally so. I
> > > don't want to change this.
> > > Mandating a forge is going to be tricky for self-hosted stuff, or
> > >
> > > people who release Go code as tarballs (it's rare, but it happens).
> > > How do you deal with that?
> >
> > By not using the macros for packages not fitting the model?
>
> The issue is that the new Go macros are tightly wound into the forge
> macros. I just want to be sure that we can leverage things like the
> dependency generators without all the other stuff.
> > I think this is very helpful especially when it's the common practice,
> > and I certainly won't blame anyone doing proper releases and not
> > just a git tag with github releases notes ;)
> >
> > Regarding naming, I think python packages must be prefixed with
> > python[23]- and can Provides: the upstream project name.
>
> I'm not sure if this matters in this discussion but an example Python3 part
> of a spec file https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
> to accommodate also EPEL (which on CentOS7 prefixes Python3 packages with
> python34 and not python3) would look like:
>
> %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pname}
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pname}}
>
> Macin

Hopefully something like this will never happen as generally I'm strongly against shipping multiple versions(of one implementation) of Go concurrently.

JC
> On the
> > other hand we have packages like docker that are clearly named
> > after upstream's name, so I don't think that would be a problem for
> > snapd. (and maybe an exception needs to be granted?)
>
> This rule only applies to Python packages that have modules that are
> designed to be imported by other Python code. Otherwise, this is not
> necessary.
>
> --
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
> _______________________________________________
> packaging mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]