Although I'm not familiarized with EPEL, I can at least answer the reasoning behind the "bastardized version."

The packaging system works differently from Fedora, and vendor dependencies are allowed. Because of that, many macros were more an issue than helpful, so we removed them.

Why the fck was this done? I asked for the macros on EPEL8 and now they remove them in EPEL9!
So we are supposed to bundle everything?!

@eclipseo I talked about this with a team mate, and I think we can talk about this in the next go sig meeting if you like. Are you planning to attend (the 2022-01-03)?
We can always find a better time but I think @ngompa also raised this issue so I would like to have him in the chat.

cc @dbenoit

Hi all,

I've submitted a draft PR against CentOS Stream 9 which refactors the bundling macros into an optional subpackage instead of stripping them out. This should allow CentOS Stream to omit the unbundling macros, which are incompatible with the distro's Go packaging conventions, while also allowing for the package to potentially be rebuilt in EPEL by the community such that the unbundling macros could be made available as a subpackage.

https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/go-rpm-macros/-/merge_requests/5

I'm looking for packages to use as a test case to verify this patch works as intended. Does anyone have recommendations for packages to test against, or otherwise have feedback on the patch?

Why:

if (0%{?epel} || 0%{?fedora})

Shouldn't it be for epel >= 9?

There is https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang%2Dx%2Dsys which is a base package and was requested for EPEL8, could be a good test candidate.

@dbenoit:

while also allowing for the package to potentially be rebuilt in EPEL by the community such that the unbundling macros could be made available as a subpackage.

I'm not sure how we would even do this. Isn't EPEL not allowed to include packages that are already included in the EL base repos?

@eclipseo:

Why:

if (0%{?epel} || 0%{?fedora})

Shouldn't it be for epel >= 9?

Perhaps the idea was that we would include this change upstream?

Tested here https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/epelgotest/builds/

I will work on getting a temporary fix into epel-rpm-macros to fix the issues with RHEL's go-rpm-macros. We would like to have a larger conversation regarding whether this (maintaining the go ecosystem in EPEL 9) is worth our time and how we want to direct our efforts considering the amount of packages we already maintain in Fedora.