Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rga/compliance-masonry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00781200-compliance-masonry/compliance-masonry.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rga/compliance-masonry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00781200-compliance-masonry/compliance-masonry-1.1.4-2.src.rpm Koji Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?state=closed&owner=rga&view=tree&method=all&order=-id Copr Builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rga/compliance-masonry/monitor/ Description: Compliance Masonry is a command-line interface (CLI) that allows users to construct certification documentation using the OpenControl Schema. Fedora Account System Username: rga
This is my first package. I would like to add it to EPEL7, F27, F28, F29, and Rawhide.
- Use a more meaningful name for your archive: Source0: https://%{provider_prefix}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Add a comment above the patch describing why it is needed. - You should unbundle the dependencies and remove the vendor directory in %prep (might take a while). That implies packaging any missing dependency. - It is not ok to apply a patch on some architecture only. The arch detection if needed should be in the patched code itself. - with_bundled isn't defined anywhere. There's a new way to package the Go libraries, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging and samples: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/golang/ It would be great to convert to the new style for F27-Rawhide and keep the old style for EPEL7.
> - Use a more meaningful name for your archive: > > Source0: https://%{provider_prefix}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-% {version}.tar.gz That results in the source url no longer being valid and doesn't that go against the Fedora url guidelines which wants the actual source url? > - Add a comment above the patch describing why it is needed. Will fix > - You should unbundle the dependencies and remove the vendor directory in %prep (might take a while). That implies packaging any missing dependency. This was recommended to me by one of the package wranglers as well as the cri-o people until the GO packaging guidelines are finalized > - It is not ok to apply a patch on some architecture only. The arch detection if needed should be in the patched code itself. Will fix > - with_bundled isn't defined anywhere. Will fix > There's a new way to package the Go libraries, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging and samples: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/golang/ > > It would be great to convert to the new style for F27-Rawhide and keep the old style for EPEL7. That looks to be a proposal. Does the draft not have precedence?
(In reply to ralford from comment #3) > > - Use a more meaningful name for your archive: > > > > Source0: https://%{provider_prefix}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-% {version}.tar.gz > > That results in the source url no longer being valid and doesn't that go > against the Fedora url guidelines which wants the actual source url? > The source URL I provided is valid, check again. > > - Add a comment above the patch describing why it is needed. > > Will fix > > > - You should unbundle the dependencies and remove the vendor directory in %prep (might take a while). That implies packaging any missing dependency. > > This was recommended to me by one of the package wranglers as well as the > cri-o people until the GO packaging guidelines are finalized > Could take months, packages are already being unbundled. > > - It is not ok to apply a patch on some architecture only. The arch detection if needed should be in the patched code itself. > > Will fix > > > - with_bundled isn't defined anywhere. > > Will fix > > > There's a new way to package the Go libraries, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging and samples: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/golang/ > > > > It would be great to convert to the new style for F27-Rawhide and keep the old style for EPEL7. > > That looks to be a proposal. Does the draft not have precedence? Most Go packages have already been converted to the new style this past year.
> The source URL I provided is valid, check again. Doh! My bad. Typed it in wrong. > Could take months, packages are already being unbundled. Okay. Thanks for the review and answering questions. Will work through your comments.
I opened this with the wrong email. Apologies for all involved. Closing as duplicate of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615641 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1615641 ***