On Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 9:05 AM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 07:46, Kevin Kofler via devel <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> > This is called "shooting the messenger".
>>
>> It is not. See my reply to Fabio.
>>
>> > LSB requi
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 07:46, Kevin Kofler via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > This is called "shooting the messenger".
>
> It is not. See my reply to Fabio.
>
> > LSB requires various obsolete interfaces, in particular it requires
> > Python
On 16. 11. 23 13:45, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
It would be very much possible to support the Python 2 parts of the spec,
without even shipping unmaintained software: Package Tauthon 2.8.4, and make
both /usr/bin/python and /usr/bin/python2 symlinks to /usr/bin/tauthon. That
should have been t
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 01:39:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > There's a difference between *claiming* LSB compliance (what you refer
> > to as backwards compatibility ?) and actually *achieving* it.
> > Claiming it (the thing we objected to) without achieving
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> This is called "shooting the messenger".
It is not. See my reply to Fabio.
> LSB requires various obsolete interfaces, in particular it requires
> Python 2 to be available as /usr/bin/python. Comment [1] contains a
> nice listing. We are not going to bring bac
Fabio Valentini wrote:
> There's a difference between *claiming* LSB compliance (what you refer
> to as backwards compatibility ?) and actually *achieving* it.
> Claiming it (the thing we objected to) without achieving it (i.e. the
> status quo for many Fedora releases) is a lie that helps nobody.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 01:28:31AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Neal Gompa wrote:
> > * AGREED: Fedora explicitly declines to support the LSB 5.0 or
> > earlier. Packagers will remove any information that implies
> > otherwise. No implementation of an LSB package may expressly state
> > o
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 1:30 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Neal Gompa wrote:
> > * AGREED: Fedora explicitly declines to support the LSB 5.0 or
> > earlier. Packagers will remove any information that implies
> > otherwise. No implementation of an LSB package may expressly state
> > or offer
Neal Gompa wrote:
> * AGREED: Fedora explicitly declines to support the LSB 5.0 or
> earlier. Packagers will remove any information that implies
> otherwise. No implementation of an LSB package may expressly state
> or offer compliance for any LSB module that Fedora does not or
> cannot comply with
=
#fedora-meeting-2: FESCO (2023-11-09)
=
Meeting started by Son_Goku at 17:06:12 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2023-11-09/fesco.2023-11-09-17.06.log.html
.
Meeting
10 matches
Mail list logo
