WIP: feat: Use conventional file names by default

[erikgeiser]

This pull request changes the behaviour of the --target CLI option to produce conventional file for the respective packages by default. Conventional file names are for example package_version_architecture.package-type for Debian packages and name-version-release.architecture.rpm for RPMs. Consider the following cases:

• --target is blank or omitted: Create a package with a conventional file name in current directory
• --target is a directory: Create a package with a conventional file name in the directory
• --target is a file name: Use this file name

Why?

Because at the moment, nfpm allows users to omit --target and uses the very weird default /tmp/foo.deb in this case. A default value should cover the most common use cases and creating the file /tmp/foo.deb would be a very weird use case and is just plain wrong for RPM files.

At the moment, there are a few issues:

• I don't know if adding a new function to the Packager interface is a bit too drastic, but currently, I cannot move the function to nfpm.go (where I initially put it) because it needs access to the architecture translation and it has to be ensured that every future architecture provides such a name.
• I also changed a bit at the end of doPackage() because the success message now has to be printed there. At the same time, I changed the behaviour to remove the empty package file if packaging fails. Is it okay to also include that in this pull request?
• I could not run the tests because I don't have access to docker on this machine

[vercel]

This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more).
To see the status of your deployment, click below or on the icon next to each commit.

🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/goreleaser/nfpm/hrdk1607s
✅ Preview: https://nfpm-git-fork-erikgeiser-feature-conventional-e993f9.goreleaser.vercel.app

[caarlos0]

• I don't know if adding a new function to the Packager interface is a bit too drastic, but currently, I cannot move the function to nfpm.go (where I initially put it) because it needs access to the architecture translation and it has to be ensured that every future architecture provides such a name.

IMHO its OK.

• I also changed a bit at the end of doPackage() because the success message now has to be printed there. At the same time, I changed the behaviour to remove the empty package file if packaging fails. Is it okay to also include that in this pull request?

I think we can do it in another one, since this one is pretty much done...

• I could not run the tests because I don't have access to docker on this machine

no problem, CI passed :) although there are some missing coverage, but we can handle that later..

[erikgeiser]

I think we can do it in another one, since this one is pretty much done...

This is already included in this pull request because I had to change this part due to the call to fmt.Printf after pkg.Package(). So now we have these options:

A: Before this pull request

	return pkg.Package(info, f)

B: Currently in this pull request

	err = pkg.Package(info, f)
	_ = f.Close()
	if err != nil {
		os.Remove(target)
		return err
	}

	fmt.Printf("created package: %s\n", target)
	return nil

C: If I remove the file removal again:

	err = pkg.Package(info, f)
	if err != nil {
		return err
	}

	fmt.Printf("created package: %s\n", target)
	return nil

What do you prefer for this pull request?

[caarlos0]

Let's leave as is then.

Can I merge it?

[erikgeiser]

Can I merge it?

As far as I'm concerned, sure.

[caarlos0]

awesome, thanks for the PR :)

[caarlos0]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.