See proposal at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mattia/fpcExclusiveArch
The idea is to create a new dynamic macro to use in a ExclusiveArch entry for packages which depend on fpc to build.
Seems reasonable to me; I'll add it to my todo list. I have something else to add to redhat-com-config as well.
Is that compiler in any EPEL releases, and if so, which ones? I can add the macro to epel-rpm-macros as well if necessary.
I'm thinking it might be good to have some actual packaging guidelines for fpc at some point. How many packages actually use fpc? If there are to be more, it might be worh drafting something, though of course I don't think any of us on the committee know anything about it. Is that something in which you'd be interested?
Replying to [comment:1 tibbs]:
Is that compiler in any EPEL releases, and if so, which ones? I can add the macro to epel-rpm-macros as well if necessary. No, fpc was in EPEL, but has been retired because of lack of maintainer. I'm thinking it might be good to have some actual packaging guidelines for fpc at some point. How many packages actually use fpc? If there are to be more, it might be worh drafting something, though of course I don't think any of us on the committee know anything about it. Is that something in which you'd be interested? I maintain 5 packages that BR fpc. I'm not sure how many other packages are there (is there any dnf command to query buildrequires just like --whatrequires?), but I'm aware of other 3 (lazarus, qt4pas, cqrlog).
No, fpc was in EPEL, but has been retired because of lack of maintainer.
I'm thinking it might be good to have some actual packaging guidelines for fpc at some point. How many packages actually use fpc? If there are to be more, it might be worh drafting something, though of course I don't think any of us on the committee know anything about it. Is that something in which you'd be interested? I maintain 5 packages that BR fpc. I'm not sure how many other packages are there (is there any dnf command to query buildrequires just like --whatrequires?), but I'm aware of other 3 (lazarus, qt4pas, cqrlog).
I've added a short note to my proposal page with some text to add to Packaging Guidelines. Maybe someone can correct it to a better english.
I prefer the fpc-srpm-macros approach noted by Björn Persson here https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/EAUKQDPUPNDAZPFIF6JM4U42Z2DC6U62/. That way control of the macro contents rests in the proper place.
I followed Björn's suggestion and created a package with the macro: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317624
When approved (if, of course, FPC approve the proposal) I will ask fpc maintainer to join as co-maintainer and I will ask the maintainers of redhat-rpm-config to require fpc-srpm-macros.
Sorry for my delay in responding; I've been out of town and stuck somewhere with really crappy Internet.
For some reason I thought we couldn't put %foo_arches in a specific macro package because either of
{{{ ExclusiveArch: %foo_arches ExclusiveArch: %{?foo_arches} }}}
would be a syntax error. Am I wrong? Both %mono_arches and %nodejs_arches are defined directly in redhat-rpm-config.
The macro package needs to be in the buildroot, but the preferred mechanism (at least for many including myself) is to have redhat-rpm-macros require a foo-srpm-macros package to do so.
My understanding is that if it expands to "" then that's a syntax error ... but that shouldn't happen, right?
We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-03-24/fpc.2016-03-24-16.01.txt):
You may want to introduce some guidelines for pascal packaging. Currently, we know about that new macro only but it should be noted in guidelines somewhere at least to enforce usage.
Replying to [comment:9 james]:
I have already write a draft paragraph to be added to Guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mattia/fpcExclusiveArch
Replying to [comment:8 raphgro]:
ACTION: mattia Add package and tell FPC what redhat-rpm-config should depend on, or speak to tibbs about adding macro directly.
The package with the new macro is awaiting review at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317624 but if you prefer to add the macro directly to redhat-rpm-config let me know. In the first case I will ask the Free Pascal Maintainer to join in maintaining the new package, so that he can add new architectures directly.
Mattia
fpc-srpm-macros is landed in Rawhide and F24 (in F23 is still in testing repo). Should I open a bugzilla ticket to ask redhat-rpm-config to add a dependency on it?
I'll take care of it; I have to add a couple of other macros there which I will hopefully do today.
To be sure, am I correct in thinking that fpc-srpm-macros has no dependencies?
Replying to [comment:12 tibbs]:
I'll take care of it; I have to add a couple of other macros there which I will hopefully do today. To be sure, am I correct in thinking that fpc-srpm-macros has no dependencies?
Correct, it depends on nothing. Thanks.
The dependency should be in rawhide's redhat-rpm-config now, but it seems to be taking longer than normal for things in rawhide to make it out to the mirrors, so it might take a bit of time before you will see the updated package in your mockbuilds.
Once I'm sure I haven't broken rawhide, I'll do an update for F24. Let me know when F23 is ready and I'll push it there.
Replying to [comment:14 tibbs]:
I've started using the new macro in rawhide and so far everything works correctly. Now the package is available also in F23 stable repo.
Well, somehow I ended up forgetting about this. I've just filed updates to get that into F23 and F24. Karma would be great.
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue assigned to james
Login to comment on this ticket.