2018-02-14 15:59 GMT-05:00 Igor Gnatenko :
>
> Your options:
>
> * Speak up and tell package names I should not touch because … (you should
> complete this sentence).
> * Fix up packages and tell package names I should not touch because you did
> that already.
> * Tell package names you want to rem
On 14/02/2018 21:59, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> As guidelines changed[0] and now require maintainers who package libraries in
> default library path (/usr/lib, /usr/lib64) to use %ldconfig_scriptlets in
> case
> they want spec file to be compatible with all Fedora/EPEL versions or drop
> them
> entir
De: "Fabio Valentini"
> Additionally, there are lots of packages that look like their
> maintainer hasn't touched them in years (for example, the only git
> commits are from mass rebuilds),
Actually it's hard to find the motivation to touch a package just for a little
syntactic cleanup. Mass c
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 17/02/2018 à 10:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit :
>> On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 07:08 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
>>> Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit :
>>
I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
older RH
On 02/16/2018 10:35 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "RR" == Roberto Ragusa writes:
> RR> Was that a valid consideration? Has something changed on that front?
>
> It was, and packages will now fail to build (via brp-ldconfig) if they
> don't package those symlinks. Though in practice pack
Le 17/02/2018 à 10:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit :
> On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 07:08 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
>> Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit :
>
>>> I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
>>> older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 15:18 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 21:59 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > Your options:
> >
> > * Speak up and tell package names I should not touch because … (you should
> > complete this se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 07:08 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit :
>
> > I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
> > older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL)
Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit :
> I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
> older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL).
> Maybe something like the following is better for people who have a spec
> file they might reuse on systems
> "RR" == Roberto Ragusa writes:
RR> When I proposed this kind of optimization in some mailing list
RR> (maybe this one?!), I was answered that my method was not entirely
RR> safe because there could have been problems for some rpm scripts
RR> calling libraries that had been just upgraded (e.
Hi Igor,
On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 21:59 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Your options:
>
> * Speak up and tell package names I should not touch because … (you should
> complete this sentence).
> * Fix up packages and tell package names I should not touch because you did
> that already.
> * Tell package
On 02/14/2018 10:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I'd be super-interested in benchmarks comparing before and after
> install times. I guess since the plan is to do this _after_ the mass
> rebuild, we'll need to wait until after the *next* rebuild to see how
> much impact this has.
Many years ago, I
On 14/02/18 21:59 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
* Fix up packages and tell package names I should not touch because you did
that already.
boostdenisarnaud jwakely
Done in
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/boost/c/4c456d525c8779b5ea8ef8b2031ad4eab6b66c61?branch=master
mysql+
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 08:12:27PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>It took me personally more than few years to come to conclusion that rpm
>packages scriptlets idea is wrong.
That exact sentence makes me wonder, did you watch the videos from Will at flock
or DevConf?
Because what you're tal
On 15 February 2018 at 15:19, David Shea wrote:
[..]
> Can we maybe step back and give other developers the benefit of the doubt
> instead of immediately attacking an attempt to provide information? This is
> really unnecessarily hostile.
>
What I wrote is not about hostility or attacking anyone
Dne 14.2.2018 v 21:59 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
> msuchy abrt satyr
* You should not touch because I done the change in upstream, it will be
propagated during next release.
Miroslav
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel m
> Determinism level is about level of *variations* of the results on
> repeating the same operations starting from exactly the same initial state.
> Executing ldconfig after each package libraries installation/upgrade or
> executing the same ldconfig only one time after install/upgrade libraries
>
On mercredi 14 février 2018 21:59:27 CET Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> * Tell package names you want to remove ldconfig scriptlets entirely instead
> of replacing them with %ldconfig_scriptlets and get fix **for free**.
I wish you remove the scriplets entirely for Rawhide only on my packages:
ec
On 14 February 2018 at 23:26, Will Woods wrote:
[..]
> I don't think this single change will make a huge difference within
> the existing ecosystem, but I think it's an important step in a larger
> shift toward make package installation & image composition a)
> introspectable and b) deterministic
Dne 14.2.2018 v 21:59 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
>
> * Speak up and tell package names I should not touch because … (you should
> complete this sentence).
> * Fix up packages and tell package names I should not touch because
> you did
> that already.
> * Tell package names you want to remove ldconf
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> I'd be super-interested in benchmarks comparing before and after
> install times. I guess since the plan is to do this _after_ the mass
> rebuild, we'll need to wait until after the *next* rebuild to see how
> much impact this has.
I don't
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:59:27PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> The whole purpose of this is to make installation of packages FASTER and
> obviously to comply with guidelines. Most of packages would be possible to
> automate, however some would not and you would need to deal with it youself.
I'd
22 matches
Mail list logo
