| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
...as recommended in:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package
Reported-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
...as it's used twice. The short version, however, appears hardcoded
only once in the output, and it comes straight from the rpkg macro
building the version string -- leave that macro as it is.
Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
...as this ends up in the actual spec file.
Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
...which makes it fall under MIT licensing terms. Daniel reports that
it's very unusual for spec files to contain explicit licensing terms
and might cause minor inconveniences later on, on mass changes to
spec files.
I originally added licensing information using SPDX identifiers to
make the project fully compliant with the REUSE Specification 3.0
(https://reuse.software/spec/), but there are anyway a few more files
not including explicit licensing information. It might be worth to
fix that later on, in any case.
Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It turns out that, while on most distributions "docdir" would be
/usr/share/doc, it's /usr/share/doc/packages/ on OpenSUSE Tumbleweed.
Use an explicit docdir as shown in:
https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_cross_distribution_howto
and don't unnecessarily hardcode directory variables in the Makefile.
Otherwise, RPM builds for OpenSUSE will fail now that we have a README
there.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If the man pages are not compressed, the current wildcards wouldn't
match them. Drop the trailing '.' from them.
Reported-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This will also set any distribution-specific LDFLAGS. It's not needed
anymore starting from Fedora 36, but the package might be built on
other versions and distributions too (including e.g. CentOS Stream 8).
Reported-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Otherwise, passt-selinux will be built separately for each supported
architecture.
Suggested-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is required as Fedora doesn't accept a temporary pointer to
a source URL.
Reported-by: Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de>
Reported-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It seems to be exposed by Koji (https://pagure.io/koji/issue/2541),
but it's not actually in use, so we have to drop that. The website
the URL tag points to reports all the needed information anyway.
Reported-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
...as specified by the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_simple_versioning
Reported-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
git_dir_changelog is useful in theory, but it requires pairs of
annotated tags, which should be generated by rpkg itself to make any
sense, implying a relatively heavyweight interaction whenever I want
to push a new package version.
Also, the default content of the changelog entries include the full
list of changes, but the Fedora Packaging Guidelines specifically
mention that:
[t]hey must never simply contain an entire copy of the source
CHANGELOG entries.
We don't have a CHANGELOG file, but the full git history is
conceptually equivalent for this purpose, I guess.
Introduce our own passt_git_changelog() rpkg macro, building
changelog entries, using tags in the form DATE-SHA, where DATE
is an ISO 8601 date representation, and SHA is a short (7-digits)
form of the head commit at a given moment (git push).
These changelog entries mention, specifically, changes to the
packaging information itself (entries under contrib/fedora), and
simply report a link to cgit for the ranges between tags.
Reported-by: Benson Muite <benson_muite@emailplus.org>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Suggested-by: Benson Muite <benson_muite@emailplus.org>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
...they seem to be supported by COPR now and make things simpler.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
COPR doesn't like them, and I'm trying to build packages there now.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
|
|
...with SELinux package, too. Tested on Fedora 35, but it should
work on pretty much any version.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
|
