search

gofed / go-macros

Rpm mechanics for Go packaging
4 stars 7 forks source link

goname removes -go from my package name #38

Closed eclipseo closed 6 years ago

eclipseo commented 6 years ago

The following piece of code:

https://github.com/gofed/go-macros/blob/6f0cadc4c48f93f02eb573649e2a94eeef12f15c/rpm/macros.d/macros.go-srpm#L50-L57

causes issue with my package golang-github-bitly-go-simplejson. It removes the "go" from the package name when building it, thus I can't import it in Koji.

ingvagabund commented 6 years ago

@nim-nim I was tempted to relax the constrain. It may make sense to keep the go in the name and remove it only if there are two or more go in a row.

ingvagabund commented 6 years ago

Currently, github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go is transformed into golang-github-aws-sdk which may be stripped too much from the original golang-github-aws-aws-sdk-go. However, we should still keep in mind the package name does not matter much as long as the virtual provides are [B]Red.

nim-nim commented 6 years ago

@eclipseo

The routine creates simpler more consistent package names. It would be awfully nice if all Go packages used this convention

However, if you don't want to go through a renaming for an old package, nothing stops you from using

Name: myoldname

in the specfile (it won't be as nice as the one computed in %{goname} though)

Like Jan wrote, the actual name used only matters for human dealing with rpm files, the devel packages are all accessed through golang() provides

nim-nim commented 6 years ago

@ingvagabund please don't remove the simplification, a lot of the non-simplified names are so redundant and human-hostile humans will keep making errors trying to type them

eclipseo commented 6 years ago

Well it turns out 25% of my Go packages needs to be renamed to work with%goname. I choose the "hbrd" path and they're waiting for review now.

Also if you need help to convert some Go packages, I'm available, I'm no proven packagers but I can do PR.

ingvagabund commented 6 years ago

@nim-nim I will not alter it without talking to you first

@eclipseo I have at least 70 packages that does not conform to the new naming schema. But I don't think it is necessary to enforce it for the already existing packages. I am completely fine to do it for the new packages but I will not do it for the current ones as it has no practical benefit.