The subject of the forge macros keeps coming up. It has been stated multiple times, from multiple contributors in multiple locations, that the forge macros should not be used.
However, it's very confusing messaging when it'd documented https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control on how to use it, it's actively in use for existing packages, and is useful.
The Go SIG ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Go ) also extensively uses these macros to make the tedium of packaging so many repos more bearable. I'm sure many others find it valuable too.
I'm comfortable having or not having the forge macros. So please do not take this request for guidance as endorsing one way or another. We just need a policy decision and marshaling the needed contributors to implement the needed changes.
Background & Context:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/XW4DTWOAT4IGQUKZTSQSVU2NLQTASQTW/ https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1270 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/248
(sorry if this is not a fesco thing and should remain in the packaging committee or somewhere else)
Indeed, this is not a fesco thing and should remain in the packaging committee.
However, should you seek fesco's guidance because the packaging committee thing is not moving anywhere, I guess we can take this ticket as such.
Metadata Update from @jsteffan: - Issue close_status updated to: Invalid - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
The FPC issue has stalled because @gotmax23 said they were working on reviving maintenance of the forge macros as a separate package. Otherwise we (FPC) would have shipped our recommendation to not use it outside of Go and Font packaging (which had their macros rewritten to hard-depend on them).
The practical issue is that nobody can reasonably work on the forge macros code as-is because it's too confusing and difficult to work with.