Created attachment 949999 [details] example macros.go to be included Description of problem: Supported architecture macros needed early. Similar to the ocaml arch macros. macros are declared in golang.spec and the golang rpm provides a macros.golang to declare the macros as well. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): redhat-rpm-config-9.1.0-54.fc20.noarch How reproducible: n/a Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: Question, if I need to provide additional rpm macros for golang packaging convience, can I still have a package like golang-devel to provide a macros.golang for these? (rather than filing bugs against redhat-rpm-config)
Switching to rawhide, that's where these things need to start at. Please create a separate golang-srpm-macros package for this purpose, we'll make redhat-rpm-config depend on that once done. This way managing future changes and additions remains in your hands, and is where the other similar cases are moving to (see eg bugs #1087794, #1089102 and #1133632)
(In reply to Panu Matilainen from comment #1) > Switching to rawhide, that's where these things need to start at. > > Please create a separate golang-srpm-macros package for this purpose, we'll > make redhat-rpm-config depend on that once done. This way managing future > changes and additions remains in your hands, and is where the other similar > cases are moving to (see eg bugs #1087794, #1089102 and #1133632) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=587606 now provides a 'golang-srpm-macros' rpm. So, will this be the only thing that redhat-rpm-config need?
For existing architectures that would be fine. However think about bootstrapping new architectures: redhat-rpm-config is among the packages you need before building anything, and if you need to be able to build golang to satisfy its depenencies... Please create a completely separate package for the srpm-macros which is independent fromthe rest of golang and has no buildrequires at all.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 22 development cycle. Changing version to '22'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora22
As I have taken over redhat-rpm-config and might miss some context. Do you still need something? And what?
closing this in favor of bz1243922 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1243922 ***