https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
--- Comment #5 from Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com ---
MIT requires that the copyright notice is always distributed along with the sources. This might not be always enforced, but it is the right thing to do. lua-rpm-macros and pyproject-rpm-macros are good recent examples.
Yeah, thats reasonable, didn't think about that.
IMO, it would be more convenient to keep the %zig_build family of macros along with the compiler package and lock the versions (e.g. do `Requires: (zig-rpm-macros = %{version} if zig-rpm-macros)` in the main `zig` package). As 0.11.0 has shown, these macros may require backward-incompatible changes. Nonetheless, a standalone zig-rpm-macros package is totally safe with a correct versioning and dependencies. So that's just a matter of your preference.
agreed. The only thing that is really needed for srpm generator is the exclusive arches and to make it easier for maintainers a build-only runtime dependency can be added Requires: (zig-rpm-macros = %{version}-%{release} if rpm-build)
BTW, %_zig_version is the only macro definition that actually requires data from zig.spec, and I'm not sure if it is even useful.
Its probably best to remove it until a use case is found.