Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore(packit): add pre-sync to fix propose-downstream action #695

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 26, 2024

Conversation

runcom
Copy link
Contributor

@runcom runcom commented Nov 26, 2024

fixed packit configuration to allow to build the vendor archive in propose downstream too - as it's bad to add conditionals around sources anyway https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_do_not_conditionalize_sources
So, if we want just one shared specfile, this is the way :mandalorian:

@runcom runcom requested a review from mmartinv November 26, 2024 08:43
@runcom runcom force-pushed the fix-vendor-upstream branch from 02cdffe to 9e74c0e Compare November 26, 2024 09:12
fido-device-onboard.spec Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@runcom runcom force-pushed the fix-vendor-upstream branch 7 times, most recently from 9668b94 to a200291 Compare November 26, 2024 10:03
@runcom runcom changed the title chore(spec): do not include the vendor tar in fedora chore(packit): add pre-sync to fix propose-downstream action Nov 26, 2024
@runcom runcom force-pushed the fix-vendor-upstream branch 2 times, most recently from b7f4c10 to a3a0bae Compare November 26, 2024 10:47
@runcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

runcom commented Nov 26, 2024

@runcom runcom force-pushed the fix-vendor-upstream branch from a3a0bae to dcf373f Compare November 26, 2024 10:50
@runcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

runcom commented Nov 26, 2024

Fedora's MRs are green as well

@runcom runcom force-pushed the fix-vendor-upstream branch from dcf373f to 0222683 Compare November 26, 2024 12:43
@runcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

runcom commented Nov 26, 2024

rebased to latest main - not sure what @nullr0ute meant with "incorrect changes" here #695 (comment) but this is very good to go finally (and automation works 🕺 )

Copy link
Contributor

@mmartinv mmartinv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe we can take this opportunity to also include downstream updates for at least c10s now that it's supported? https://packit.dev/docs/configuration/upstream/propose_downstream#syncing-the-release-to-centos-stream

.packit.yaml Show resolved Hide resolved
.packit.yaml Show resolved Hide resolved
@runcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

runcom commented Nov 26, 2024

Maybe we can take this opportunity to also include downstream updates for at least c10s now that it's supported? https://packit.dev/docs/configuration/upstream/propose_downstream#syncing-the-release-to-centos-stream

I honestly would get this done for 0.5.1 as it's been going out of scope from the original bug 😄 but we can tackle that immediately next to this :)

@runcom
Copy link
Contributor Author

runcom commented Nov 26, 2024

I honestly would get this done for 0.5.1 as it's been going out of scope from the original bug 😄 but we can tackle that immediately next to this :)

scratch that, I made it work :) pushing!

Copy link
Contributor

@nullr0ute nullr0ute left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks fine

@mergify mergify bot merged commit 30ca1de into fdo-rs:main Nov 26, 2024
26 of 27 checks passed
@runcom runcom deleted the fix-vendor-upstream branch November 26, 2024 15:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants