Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> That's exactly why we need zif to become the default instead.
>
> Sounds like a Fedora 18 feature just waiting to be made.
Sadly, so far this got blocked on:
* the zif developers targeting only the GUI primarily and feeling the
command line is
Kevin Kofler wrote:
That's exactly why we need zif to become the default instead.
Sounds like a Fedora 18 feature just waiting to be made.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Peter Robinson wrote:
> Spins are required to have yum so by definition they will have python as
> well.
Official spins maybe, but remixes can now be zif-based instead. (Yes, this
is already realistic for a remix, though zif is still a bit rough.)
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
dev
Peter Robinson wrote:
> python in an explicit dependency in Fedora due to yum.
That's exactly why we need zif to become the default instead.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:48:58PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> spice-gtk3-devel.rpm size with vala bindings included:
> 10865
>
> spice-gtk3-devel.rpm size without vala bindings:
> 9921
>
> Compressed size of bindings files:
> 10865 - 9921 = 944 bytes
>
> spice-gtk3-vala.rpm (separate vala bin
Hi,
On 01/17/2012 11:54 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:05:36PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Once that is done, then just adding the vala bindings to the
devel-package likely takes less disk space for those who
do install them, then the meta data needed for a separate su
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:05:36PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Once that is done, then just adding the vala bindings to the
> devel-package likely takes less disk space for those who
> do install them, then the meta data needed for a separate subpackage,
> and that metadata needs to be downloaded
Hi,
On 01/17/2012 04:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 02:16:19PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/17/2012 02:08 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I disagree. Like other "exotic languages", anything related to i
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Emmanuel Seyman
wrote:
> * Christophe Fergeau [17/01/2012 19:16] :
>>
>> By that reasoning, shouldn't we also fold python bindings in the -devel
>> package? They are small, python is already implicitly installed, so this
>> should be fine too.
>
> This is going to
* Christophe Fergeau [17/01/2012 19:16] :
>
> By that reasoning, shouldn't we also fold python bindings in the -devel
> package? They are small, python is already implicitly installed, so this
> should be fine too.
This is going to make things harder for spins and Fedora-based distributions
who mi
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones
>> wrote:
>> > I agree with Ralf. Vala files are meaningless except for people who
>> > care about vala, so they
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > More to the point, presumably if the vala files were included in
> > *-devel, they'd also cause an explicit or implicit dependency on
> > vala-devel, which would mean
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 02:25:08PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 14:16 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > users who have no use for vala.
>
> Are users having no use of vala really installing -devel packages or
> vala program ?
spice-gtk is a C library shipping C headers
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I agree with Ralf. Vala files are meaningless except for people who
> > care about vala, so they should go in a subpackage.
>
> So is gobject-introspection then. No
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I agree with Ralf. Vala files are meaningless except for people who
> care about vala, so they should go in a subpackage.
So is gobject-introspection then. Not everybody care about it, or
systemtap, gdb python macros, valgrind..
Furth
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 02:16:19PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 02:08 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> >Hi
> >
> >On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>I disagree. Like other "exotic languages", anything related to it should
> >>remain "strictly optional".
> >Un
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 14:25 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 14:16 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > users who have no use for vala.
>
> Are users having no use of vala really installing -devel packages or
> vala program ?
Err, I meant "-devel package of vala program"
Pier
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 14:16 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> users who have no use for vala.
Are users having no use of vala really installing -devel packages or
vala program ?
Pierre
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 01/17/2012 02:08 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I disagree. Like other "exotic languages", anything related to it should
remain "strictly optional".
Unlike other bindings which are binaries and link or require external
packages, vapi
Hi
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I disagree. Like other "exotic languages", anything related to it should
> remain "strictly optional".
Unlike other bindings which are binaries and link or require external
packages, vapi files are small plain text file that can be use
Hi,
On 01/16/2012 11:21 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Eitherway I think we need some (minimalistic) guidelines on
howto package vala bindings so that we can do this consistently
and with proper directory ownership.
Note that the bindings
Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> I also prefer the vapi files are part of the -devel package, that
> reduces the number of packages & depedency, and it's not worth the
> split for a few kb.
I think that consistency, also with other language bindings, is worth the
extra subpackage(s). And it would allow
On 01/16/2012 11:21 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Eitherway I think we need some (minimalistic) guidelines on
howto package vala bindings so that we can do this consistently
and with proper directory ownership.
Note that the bindings provi
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Eitherway I think we need some (minimalistic) guidelines on
> howto package vala bindings so that we can do this consistently
> and with proper directory ownership.
Note that the bindings provided by vala itself are installed in its
own dir
Hi,
More and more packages are getting / installing vala bindings.
While adding vala bindings to the spice-gtk package I've noticed
that there are some issues / inconsistencies with how vala bindings
are packaged:
1) Some packages put them in their regular -devel, others in a separate
-vala
2)
25 matches
Mail list logo
