Christopher wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:23 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
>> > Moreover, gpg2 is not option-compatible with gpg1, so using
>> > alternatives is not a good idea for this reason, either.
>>
>> The same argument could be used to support not changing what 'gpg' points
>> to (gpg v1 vs v
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:23 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 08:15, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >> On 12/19/18 4:31 PM, John Harris wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 5:10:21 AM EST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >> > > gnupg2
On 20. 12. 18 14:41, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Hello folks,
since https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGeneratorsByDefault
was approved by FESCo, I've went ahead and turned it ON.
You'd need:
* python-rpm-generators-7-1.fc30
* python-rpm-macros-3-41.fc30
Notes for usage:
* If it add
> "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes:
MH> Is there anything we can do to prevent maintains to override the
MH> change with their next "magical sync" from jira/RDO/github/whatever?
MH> I mean we already say they should not do that, but can we somehow
MH> make sure they actually won't?
This question
Hi,
On 20-12-18 18:45, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 12/20/18 2:35 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 11:29, Richard Hughes wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:16, Hans de Goede wrote:
So I say +100 to just pushing the changes directly, as said
people can always
Hi,
Does anyone know how to contact Pradeep?
I have the following bug open:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655974
I have followed Unresponsive Maintainer policies and am posting this in the
hope of getting some traction.
Thanks
--
Christopher Brown
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 08:15, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 12/19/18 4:31 PM, John Harris wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 5:10:21 AM EST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> > > gnupg2 is now obsoleting gnupg and the previous gpg command is not
>>
Hi,
I am trying to contact Siddharth Sharma, the maintainer of the sqlcipher
package. I have filed a bug and asked him to respond, but have not received a
response within a month. Does anyone know how to contact him?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651956
Thanks,
Daniel Martinez
_
On 12/20/18 2:35 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 11:29, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:16, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> So I say +100 to just pushing the changes directly, as said
>>> people can always revert them.
>>
>> Completely agree
On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 17:09 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 16:57 Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 11:50 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 12. 12. 18 23:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveObsoleteScriptlets
> > > >
No, it's automation which just pushes new thing for them.
People basically don't care.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 17:55 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:50:38AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 12. 12. 18 23:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remo
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:50:38AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 12. 12. 18 23:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveObsoleteScriptlets
> >
> >== Summary ==
> >Remove scriptlets which are not needed anymore (ldconfig,
> >gtk-update-icon-cache, etc.).
>
>
> Is the
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 2:15:44 AM EST Panu Matilainen wrote:
> That's pretty much the opposite direction from obsoleting, which is the
> purpose here.
GnuPG 1 isn't obsolete. It may not be option compatible, but neither are
different alternatives for `emacs`, `java`, `iptables`, `mkisofs
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 16:57 Adam Williamson On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 11:50 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 12. 12. 18 23:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveObsoleteScriptlets
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
> > > Remove scriptlets which are not needed anymore (ldconfi
On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 11:50 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 12. 12. 18 23:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveObsoleteScriptlets
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Remove scriptlets which are not needed anymore (ldconfig,
> > gtk-update-icon-cache, etc.).
>
> Is there an
Hello folks,
since https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGeneratorsByDefault
was approved by FESCo, I've went ahead and turned it ON.
You'd need:
* python-rpm-generators-7-1.fc30
* python-rpm-macros-3-41.fc30
Notes for usage:
* If it adds some dependency you don't need — please pa
Hello Petr,
> So, first, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to think
> about this. It's certainly interesting and tries to solve similar
> problems from a completely different angle.
>
> Your proposal focuses on distribution packages rather than on
> independent applications. I'd argue it
On 12. 12. 18 23:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveObsoleteScriptlets
== Summary ==
Remove scriptlets which are not needed anymore (ldconfig,
gtk-update-icon-cache, etc.).
Is there anything we can do to prevent maintains to override the change
with their next
On 19. 12. 18 11:22, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:20 AM Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
ZJ> I think it's pretty clear: all the standard invocations of
ZJ> scriptlets that have by replaced by transfiletriggers will be
ZJ> removed, al
On Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 11:29, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:16, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > So I say +100 to just pushing the changes directly, as said
> > people can always revert them.
>
> Completely agree. For my packages I'd totally prefer things just
> magically be
On Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 08:15, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 12/19/18 4:31 PM, John Harris wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 5:10:21 AM EST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > gnupg2 is now obsoleting gnupg and the previous gpg command is not
> > > available.
[...]
> > I can't believe this
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:16, Hans de Goede wrote:
> So I say +100 to just pushing the changes directly, as said
> people can always revert them.
Completely agree. For my packages I'd totally prefer things just
magically be done without any action on my part.
Richard.
___
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 5:17 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 20-12-18 10:54, Raphael Groner wrote:
> >> So what process should I use? Pull Requests or just removing obsolete
> >> stuff?
> >> I'm ready to do either way. Should I leave this to FESCo?
> >
> > My vote would go for Pull Request
Hi,
On 20-12-18 10:54, Raphael Groner wrote:
So what process should I use? Pull Requests or just removing obsolete stuff?
I'm ready to do either way. Should I leave this to FESCo?
My vote would go for Pull Requests to give the packagers a (limited) chance to
look into the proposal individuall
> So what process should I use? Pull Requests or just removing obsolete stuff?
> I'm ready to do either way. Should I leave this to FESCo?
My vote would go for Pull Requests to give the packagers a (limited) chance to
look into the proposal individually. Maybe after some elapsed time have waited,
Ok, so I put my preferred way of doing it:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes%2FRemoveObsoleteScriptlets&type=revision&diff=530714&oldid=530690
Once there will be FESCo ticket (which actually should have been sent
yesterday), I'll definitely would like to hear FESCo opinion and re
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20181216.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20181219.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 10
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 310
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 21.31 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
27 matches
Mail list logo
