On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:37 PM David Sommerseth wrote:
>
> On 13/01/2025 12:22, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > This isn't new since December 2024, the sq CLI was*never* stable, and
> > basically every 0.x -> 0.(x+1) release broke some part of the
> > command-line API. The upstream project made it qu
On 13/01/2025 12:22, Fabio Valentini wrote:
This isn't new since December 2024, the sq CLI was*never* stable, and
basically every 0.x -> 0.(x+1) release broke some part of the
command-line API. The upstream project made it quite explicit that the
CLI would only be stable going forward after the 1
On 13/01/2025 11:52, Clemens Lang wrote:
I don’t think EPEL can reasonably add stability guarantees that
> upstream does not provide except by pinning a package at an old
> version, but that would mean that EPEL would essentially package
> unsupported software.
That's been the practice so far,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:53 AM Clemens Lang wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> > On 13. Jan 2025, at 11:38, David Sommerseth via devel
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Has something changed in the Fedora EPEL packaging policy in regards to
> > package stability?
>
> Just for the record: I’m explicitly not answer
Hi David,
> On 13. Jan 2025, at 11:38, David Sommerseth via devel
> wrote:
>
>
> Has something changed in the Fedora EPEL packaging policy in regards to
> package stability?
Just for the record: I’m explicitly not answering this question. I’m also not
the maintainer for sequoia-sq.
> Sinc
Hi,
Has something changed in the Fedora EPEL packaging policy in regards to
package stability?
Since the updates which has arrived since early December 2024, the
updates to sequoia-sq has twice broken my automated scripts.
The first update which broke my scripts changed --recipient-file to
