Re: New Go Packaging Guidelines landed in rawhide (koji) today
by Jakub Cajka
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl>
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Cc: golang(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 4:20:40 PM
> Subject: Re: New Go Packaging Guidelines landed in rawhide (koji) today
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:39:07AM -0400, Jakub Cajka wrote:
> > > F31 change page:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Adopt_new_Go_Packaging_Guidelines
> > > and approval: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2120
> >
> > It seems that this change has been accepted as Self Contained Change
> > but IMHO it is System Wide Change as it seems to affect (nearly) all
> > Go based packages in distribution(and will require work/attention of
> > people that are not change owners, actually not accounted for in
> > change proposal). For past several releases I have been doing rebase
> > of Go compiler change(yet to be filed for F31) that is IMHO
> > comparable(maybe a bit smaller) in scope and they were always deemed
> > by FESCO as System Wide Changes. This really leaves me
> > confused. Could someone from FESCO clarify?
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes says
> > Examples include [...] a coordinated effort within a SIG with
> > limited impact outside the SIG's functional area
>
> So in this case, even though the change affects so many packages, it
> falls into the "self contained change" category.
>
> That said, the difference between "system-wide" and "self-contained"
> boils down to two things: some additional data required in the change
> page, and filing the change a bit earlier. In this case the additional
> data is mostly there in the change page, and the change was filed early,
> so even if we were to change the Change to "system-wide", the effect
> would be cosmetic.
>
> Zbyszek
Thank you for clarification :). IMO it would be great if that has been recorded in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes, this approach can't be really inferred from it(at least I don't see it there).
With that popped on my mind that may be calling it "early/late window change" would fit better along with recording the complexity of the change, rather then system wide, contained change. But this is really just my brain storm.
Unfortunately no early changes for me as Golang release are aligned late in to the Fedora devel cycle.
JC
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
4 years, 10 months
[go-rpm-macros] Issue #1: -devel subpackage builds differently on different
arches
by Nicolas Mailhot
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
4 years, 10 months