Hello,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2017-01-14 06:45, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup
On 2017-01-14 06:45, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2017 5:54:41 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
Doh I missed this.
On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 11:10 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> praiskup wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Cool. Let's provide 'pkgconf' so we can be also three, too! But
> > at the
> > same time please consider not dropping 'pkgconfig' for no reason.
>
> ... and also let's make sure that the new package doe
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:10:59 -0500
f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote:
> praiskup wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Cool. Let's provide 'pkgconf' so we can be also three, too! But
> > at the same time please consider not dropping 'pkgconfig' for no
> > reason.
>
> ... and also let's make sure tha
praiskup wrote:
> [...]
> Cool. Let's provide 'pkgconf' so we can be also three, too! But at the
> same time please consider not dropping 'pkgconfig' for no reason.
... and also let's make sure that the new package does not break builds.
For one of ours, the .spec file contained:
BuildRequire
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:45:48AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Adam Williamson
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 09:51 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> >> And being afraid of
>> >> switching to a
Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Cool. Let's provide 'pkgconf' so we can be also three, too! But at the
> same time please consider not dropping 'pkgconfig' for no reason.
It's not "no reason". The reason is to provide a drop-in replacement, which
necessarily requires using the same binary name. At that
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> Neal Gompa wrote:
>> Because pkgconf supports the full specification, including Provides
>> rules. pkgconfig does not. It's been *years* and they never added
>> support for it. It's even documented to be a stub implementation in
>> p
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Hi Neal!
>
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:51:39 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
>> > I hope no. Can you be precise here? I'm all for protecting Fedora's
>> > interests.;
>>
>> I strongly believe in Fedora's Foundations[0], which include
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 19:35 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> You argue that the change should be mostly painless, but without
>> providing any details: why not rebuild a 10 or 100 or 1000 packages
>> in a mock root with
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 09:51 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> And being afraid of
>> switching to a different and fully compatible implementation of
>> pkg-config just because it's not the implementation we've used for
>> over a decade is co
On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 19:35 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> You argue that the change should be mostly painless, but without
> providing any details: why not rebuild a 10 or 100 or 1000 packages
> in a mock root with pkgconf-pkg-config? Even if there are some minor
> hiccups, at least w
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:45:48AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 09:51 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> And being afraid of
> >> switching to a different and fully compatible implementation of
> >> pkg-config just becau
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> Neal Gompa wrote:
>> Because pkgconf supports the full specification, including Provides
>> rules. pkgconfig does not. It's been *years* and they never added
>> support for it. It's even documented to be a stub implementation in
>> pkgconfig.
Neal Gompa wrote:
> Because pkgconf supports the full specification, including Provides
> rules. pkgconfig does not. It's been *years* and they never added
> support for it. It's even documented to be a stub implementation in
> pkgconfig. As a result of pkgconf fully implementing the Provides
> rul
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Hi Neal!
>
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:51:39 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
>> > I hope no. Can you be precise here? I'm all for protecting Fedora's
>> > interests.;
>>
>> I strongly believe in Fedora's Foundations[0], which include a comm
Hi Neal!
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:51:39 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I hope no. Can you be precise here? I'm all for protecting Fedora's
> > interests.;
>
> I strongly believe in Fedora's Foundations[0], which include a commitment to
> "excellence" and "innovation".
I hope it all is abo
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 09:51 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> And being afraid of
>> switching to a different and fully compatible implementation of
>> pkg-config just because it's not the implementation we've used for
>> over a decade is contra
On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 09:51 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> And being afraid of
> switching to a different and fully compatible implementation of
> pkg-config just because it's not the implementation we've used for
> over a decade is contrary to those values.
But...you just said yourself it's not "full
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 7:45:05 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 7:45:05 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 5:54:41 PM C
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 5:54:41 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>> >> Doh I missed this. This is now approved due to
22 matches
Mail list logo
