On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:54:18PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > It does seem like something like that should be possible.
> This is possible already, due to a fedpkg update a couple months ago:
> https://docs.pagure.org/fedpkg/releases/1.35.html
Do we have policy around that?
One reason on
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:46 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:17:13PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I still don't get why this subset case requires all the extra module
> > goop? Couldn't we just have fedpkg have an "fedpkg build
> > --all-releases" switch to just trigger on
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:28:02PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
> My understanding-- from skimming the documentation a few times and
> reading discussions about modularity-- is that I'd now need to keep
> track of two dist-git repositories, and two different metadata files.
> This feels like a lot of e
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:17:13PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> I still don't get why this subset case requires all the extra module
> goop? Couldn't we just have fedpkg have an "fedpkg build
> --all-releases" switch to just trigger on the same commit for all
> releases?
It does seem like something
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:15 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:07:44PM -0600, Al Stone wrote:
> >-- And the one question I have to add on to Christopher's wonderful
> > list: I have a package where upstream releases about once a month,
> > and each new release
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:15 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:07:44PM -0600, Al Stone wrote:
> >-- And the one question I have to add on to Christopher's wonderful
> > list: I have a package where upstream releases about once a month,
> > and each new release
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:07:44PM -0600, Al Stone wrote:
>-- And the one question I have to add on to Christopher's wonderful
> list: I have a package where upstream releases about once a month,
> and each new release must by definition be backwards compatible
> (acpica-tools
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:07:44PM -0600, Al Stone wrote:
> On 10/3/18 9:53 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > I'm still very confused about how to do modular packaging in Fedora. I
> > don't know:
> >
> > 1. How do I create a module for a new Fedora package?
> > 2. How do I create a module for my existin
On 10/3/18 9:53 PM, Christopher wrote:
> I'm still very confused about how to do modular packaging in Fedora. I
> don't know:
>
> 1. How do I create a module for a new Fedora package?
> 2. How do I create a module for my existing non-modular Fedora package?
> 3. How do I declare BuildRequires on m
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:46:54PM -, Raphael Groner wrote:
> >> 4. How do I declare Requires on my runtime dependencies from another
> >> module?
> > No changes on the RPM level. You also have dependencies on the module
> > level,
> > which makes their packages available to you. At buildti
>> 4. How do I declare Requires on my runtime dependencies from another module?
> No changes on the RPM level. You also have dependencies on the module level,
> which makes their packages available to you. At buildtime it means their
> packages
> are available for you to install in the buildroo
Hi Christopher,
other contributors are wondering, too. I tried recently to ask your question
and got an anwser that "it depends" with the dependencies where they're given,
although I fail to see a significant difference.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mattia Verga
wrote:
>
> Il 04/10/18 17:22, Stephen Gallagher ha scritto:
> >
> > If FreePascal and Lazarus of the correct version are available in the
> > standard repository (i.e. you don't have to specify a non-default
> > stream of a module to get the correct ver
Il 04/10/18 17:22, Stephen Gallagher ha scritto:
>
> If FreePascal and Lazarus of the correct version are available in the
> standard repository (i.e. you don't have to specify a non-default
> stream of a module to get the correct version), you do not need to
> specify them explicitly in the module
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:09 AM Mattia Verga
wrote:
>
> Il 04/10/18 05:53, Christopher ha scritto:
> >
> > The answers to these questions should be clear, step-by-step
> > command-line instructions, or specific examples of a SPEC file
> > modification. Where can I find that kind of documentation?
Il 04/10/18 05:53, Christopher ha scritto:
>
> The answers to these questions should be clear, step-by-step
> command-line instructions, or specific examples of a SPEC file
> modification. Where can I find that kind of documentation?
There's a lot of information about that at
https://docs.fedorap
On 4.10.2018 08:02, Petr Šabata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:53:25PM -0400, Christopher wrote:
5. How do I know what modules are available?
This one is tricky.
This cannot be tricky. Please make it not tricky.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
__
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:53:25PM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> I'm still very confused about how to do modular packaging in Fedora. I
> don't know:
>
> 1. How do I create a module for a new Fedora package?
> 2. How do I create a module for my existing non-modular Fedora package?
https://docs.fedo
18 matches
Mail list logo
