golang December 2023

golang@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
12 discussions

[go-rpm-macros] Issue #2: EPEL availability
by Nicolas Mailhot 29 Mar '24

29 Mar '24

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

2 4

[go-rpm-macros] Issue #3: %goprep should apply patches automatically
by Nicolas Mailhot 29 Mar '24

29 Mar '24

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

6 9

[go-rpm-macros] Issue #36: Renaming BUILDTAGS and LDFLAGS to include GO prefixes
by Link Dupont 29 Mar '24

29 Mar '24

linkdupont reported a new issue against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following: `` In #34 and #35, it was brought up to rename the `BUILDTAGS` variable to `GOBUILDTAGS` in order to be more explicit about the intended use of the variables and to avoid any potential namespace collision with other variables. I looked into what packages are using `BUILDTAGS` today to figure out how much of an impact a rename like this will have. As of this writing, the following packages are using `BUILDTAGS` in some capacity: ``` buildah.spec containernetworking-plugins.spec cri-tools.spec go-compilers.spec golang-github-prometheus-node-exporter.spec golang-github-prometheus.spec grafana.spec hugo.spec moby-engine.spec oci-seccomp-bpf-hook.spec pack.spec podman.spec reg.spec runc.spec skopeo.spec snapd.spec source-to-image.spec stargz-snapshotter.spec syncthing.spec weldr-client.spec ``` And the follow packages use `LDFLAGS`: ``` aerc.spec age.spec butane.spec clash.spec containerd.spec doctl.spec fzf.spec geoipupdate.spec git-lfs.spec golang-github-aliyun-cli.spec golang-github-colinmarc-hdfs-2.spec golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi.spec golang-github-hub.spec golang-github-jsonnet-bundler.spec golang-github-magefile-mage.spec golang-github-prometheus.spec golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs.spec golang-github-tdewolff-minify.spec golang-github-theoapp-theo-agent.spec golang-mvdan-editorconfig.spec ignition.spec kiln.spec micro.spec open-policy-agent.spec osbuild-composer.spec rclone.spec reg.spec source-to-image.spec syncthing.spec tinygo.spec vgrep.spec weldr-client.spec ``` I identified these packages by grepping the contents of the [current spec tarball](https://src.fedoraproject.org/repo/rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz). To avoid breaking these packages that are currently using `BUILDTAGS` or `LDFLAGS`, there are two possible approaches I see to safely rename the variables: #### 1. Rebuild everything in a side-tag Patch `go-rpm-macros` to rename `BUILDTAGS` and `LDFLAGS` to `GOBUILDTAGS` and `GOLDFLAGS` respectively. Then patch the above packages and stage them all in a side-tag to update them in one monolithic Bodhi update. #### 2. Support both old and new variables at the same time Patch `go-rpm-macros` to support **both** `BUILDTAGS`/`LDFLAGS` *and* `GOBUILDTAGS`/`GOLDFLAGS` simultaneously. Then patch the above packages over time until everything has been ported over to using `GOBUILDTAGS` and `GOLDFLAGS`, and then drop the old variables from `go-rpm-macros`. I'm not sure how easy either of these approaches will be. They are both moving targets as new packages are constantly getting added. It might just be a constant effort to try and keep on top of all the patches as new packages come along and patches need to be rebased onto their target's changes. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/issue/36

4 5

[go-rpm-macros] Issue #46: %gobuildflags missing double quotation marks
by Petr Hruska 29 Mar '24

29 Mar '24

hruskape reported a new issue against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following: `` It seems that commit https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/c/359d80bbfe7f0490fc51c43af8d986863516c5bb?… breaking %gobuildflags usage in spec file. Getting error, as double quotation marks are removed. Specfile section unset LDFLAGS %make_build GOBUILDFLAGS="%{gobuildflags}" Error: + /usr/bin/make -O -j16 V=1 VERBOSE=1 'GOBUILDFLAGS=-buildmode pie -compiler gc -tags=rpm_crashtraceback' ' -ldflags ' -B 0x3433f3bcad171c4e7f8f736da295a9fac8289b8c -compressdwarf=false -extldflags '-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -a -v -x' /usr/bin/make: invalid option -- 'c' /usr/bin/make: invalid option -- 'x' Usage: make [options] [target] ... `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/issue/46

2 3

[go-rpm-macros] PR #41: Convert LDFLAGS to GOLDFLAGS and BUILTAGS to GOBUILDTAGS
by Robert-André Mauchin 15 Mar '24

15 Mar '24

eclipseo opened a new pull-request against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following: `` Convert LDFLAGS to GOLDFLAGS and BUILTAGS to GOBUILDTAGS `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/pull-request/41

2 1

Review request: go2rpm dependencies for latest Hugo
by W. Michael Petullo 02 Jan '24

02 Jan '24

2 4

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Go SIG
by jcajka＠fedoraproject.org 31 Dec '23

31 Dec '23

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Go SIG on 2024-01-01 from 20:00:00 to 21:00:00 Europe/Prague At fedora-golang(a)libera.chat The meeting will be about: Fedora's Go SIG meeting More information available at: [https://pagure.io/GoSIG/go-sig/](https://pagure.io/GoSIG/go-sig/) Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10012/

1 0

Re: Enabling GOPROXY and GOSUMDB in Fedora
by Neal Gompa 20 Dec '23

20 Dec '23

On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 4:14 PM Brad Smith <bradley.g.smith(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > At a minimum, I recommend that the patch include the original values > for GOPROXY, GOSUMDB, and GOTOOLCHAIN as comments. This makes it > easier to change back to default values. At the moment, one has to > visit the relevant web pages. > > I lean towards providing upstream defaults in this case with updated > content on the developer portal (and elsewhere?) with information on > why changing these values would be useful. I agree that the comments > in the thread are persuasive (for me). > I agree with this. I'd rather keep the patch than revert to upstream defaults. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

4 4

Enabling GOPROXY and GOSUMDB in Fedora
by Alejandro Saez Morollon 19 Dec '23

19 Dec '23

Hi everyone. TL;DR: Remove a patch we ship in Go that disables GOPROXY and GOSUMDB and follow upstream defaults, or keep it? Recently, I had a short conversation in a public forum about two Go features that we modified in Fedora. GOPROXY and GOSUMDB. As I prepare the Fedora 40 and Go 1.22 proposal, it is a great time to discuss it. You can see the conversation here, I think they bring really good points that we should consider: https://mas.to/@zekjur/111359951465906642 So first, what are these variables? - GOPROXY sets the server for fetching module-related information and dependencies. - GOSUMDB sets the checksum database URL to verify module downloads and ensure their integrity during module resolution. You can read them more in detail here: - https://go.dev/ref/mod#environment-variables - https://go.dev/ref/mod#authenticating - https://go.dev/ref/mod#module-proxy There are four approaches as I see this: 1. Keep it the way it is right now. 2. Remove the patch and follow upstream. 3. Create a way to ensure the users know that that option can be changed and leave one of the two previous options as default (by creating two packages, one with the default setting and another that applies the patch). 4. Have a GOPROXY service by Fedora. 1 and 2 are the easiest and most logical ones. 3rd is complex, and I'm not sure it brings any value. 4th would be ideal, but that means maintaining a service with all its costs and time.

2 1

[go-rpm-macros] PR #59: [go-rpm-macros-epel] Add macros.go-compilers-golang override
by Maxwell G 18 Dec '23

18 Dec '23

gotmax23 opened a new pull-request against the project: `go-rpm-macros` that you are following: `` [go-rpm-macros-epel] Add macros.go-compilers-golang override `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/pull-request/59

1 2

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Go SIG
by jcajka＠fedoraproject.org 17 Dec '23

17 Dec '23

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Go SIG on 2023-12-18 from 20:00:00 to 21:00:00 Europe/Prague At fedora-golang(a)libera.chat The meeting will be about: Fedora's Go SIG meeting More information available at: [https://pagure.io/GoSIG/go-sig/](https://pagure.io/GoSIG/go-sig/) Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10012/

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Go SIG
by jcajka＠fedoraproject.org 03 Dec '23

03 Dec '23

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Go SIG on 2023-12-04 from 20:00:00 to 21:00:00 Europe/Prague At fedora-golang(a)libera.chat The meeting will be about: Fedora's Go SIG meeting More information available at: [https://pagure.io/GoSIG/go-sig/](https://pagure.io/GoSIG/go-sig/) Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10012/

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

golang December 2023