On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:05:13 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> As much as I like a "minimal installation" as a base core for spins and
> other products, I'm a much bigger fan of fewer and bigger packages instead
> of confronting and overwhelming distribution users with thousands of packages.
> You
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:43:15 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I read that, but there is no really explained why it should not be
> subpackage. Moreover, I am not sure if you support my point or you are
> against :)
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-July/212924.html
--
devel mailing
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:02:05 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 30 July 2015 at 11:48, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> [snip]
> > These are definitely fair points, but at the end, this should be left up
> > to the maintainer if there will be -emacs package and the general
> > preference should be to supp
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:39:00 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> If there's a general consensus that we want
> to switch back to the splitting out of emacs sub-packages, I would
> definitely support that initiative. But I think (and I'm not speaking
> for them) the FPC would want to see good reason
On 30 July 2015 at 11:48, Vít Ondruch wrote:
[snip]
> These are definitely fair points, but at the end, this should be left up
> to the maintainer if there will be -emacs package and the general
> preference should be to support the subpackages. I hope it will give as
> greater opportunities with
Dne 30.7.2015 v 12:39 Jonathan Underwood napsal(a):
> On 30 July 2015 at 11:27, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:18:13 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>>> Actually what is the point of following?
>>>
>>> ```
>>> Case II
>>>
>>> Where a package's principal functionality does not requi
Dne 30.7.2015 v 12:27 Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:18:13 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>> Actually what is the point of following?
>>
>> ```
>> Case II
>>
>> Where a package's principal functionality does not require (X)Emacs, but
>> the package also includes some auxiliary El
On 30 July 2015 at 11:27, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:18:13 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>> Actually what is the point of following?
>>
>> ```
>> Case II
>>
>> Where a package's principal functionality does not require (X)Emacs, but
>> the package also includes some auxiliary E
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:18:13 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Actually what is the point of following?
>
> ```
> Case II
>
> Where a package's principal functionality does not require (X)Emacs, but
> the package also includes some auxiliary Elisp files to provide support
> for the package in (X)Emacs
Dne 29.7.2015 v 19:42 Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:53:27 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>
>> "The Emacs add-on packaging guidelines no longer stipulate that packages
>> which
>> also bundle support for Emacs should split out those Emacs files into
>> separate
>> sub-packages.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:12:56 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs for more detail."
> >> > And once again the wording is weak. It says "should". Three times even.
> >> What's wrong with the word "should"? What am I missing? Seems like the
> >> usu
On 29 July 2015 at 20:08, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 08:03:00PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> >> "The Emacs add-on packaging guidelines no longer stipulate that packages
>> >> which
>> >> also bundle support for Emacs should split out those Emacs files into
>> >> separ
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 08:03:00PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> >> "The Emacs add-on packaging guidelines no longer stipulate that packages
> >> which
> >> also bundle support for Emacs should split out those Emacs files into
> >> separate
> >> sub-packages. This package should instead ship
On 29 July 2015 at 18:42, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:53:27 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>
>> "The Emacs add-on packaging guidelines no longer stipulate that packages
>> which
>> also bundle support for Emacs should split out those Emacs files into
>> separate
>> sub-packages.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:53:27 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> "The Emacs add-on packaging guidelines no longer stipulate that packages which
> also bundle support for Emacs should split out those Emacs files into separate
> sub-packages. This package should instead ship those files with the main
> pac
On 28 March 2015 at 19:28, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 06:05:11PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> rjonesemacs-common-tuareg
>
> Update in Rawhide:
>
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/emacs-common-tuareg.git/commit/?id=4e05b9b64d9a6723d0b72b9b7319428ee670cf0d
>
t
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 06:05:11PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> rjonesemacs-common-tuareg
Update in Rawhide:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/emacs-common-tuareg.git/commit/?id=4e05b9b64d9a6723d0b72b9b7319428ee670cf0d
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://peo
Hi,
Presently a lot of packages are not complying with the Emacs packaging
guidelines[1]. These guidelines have been in place in their current
form since Fedora 16, so it's probably time to start fixing packages.
The lists below detail packages with various problems, and their
package owners
18 matches
Mail list logo
