On 11-04-2024 15:17, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 04. 24 15:05, Sandro wrote:
On 11-04-2024 13:54, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 04. 24 11:55, Sandro wrote:
While I ponder those thoughts some more, moving forward in either
direction, the next step would be writing a change proposal?
I'd start by:
Packaging pynose without hacks (only making it Conflict with nose, no
compatibility Provides, Obsoletes or dist-infos).
That way, pro-active packagers can switch already.
That makes sense. Review is up [1]. If enough packagers adapt, I may
not need to go through the changes process.
And the change proposal can then describe what will be *added* to
pynose, rather than describing the approach from scratch.
Since predicting the future is difficult, I'll start on writing up a
proposal while the package is being introduced, anyway.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274514
I see "# Package doesn't provide any tests" in the %check section.
That certainly feels a bit dodgy. This successor of a test framework
decided to ditch all of the tests it used to have? That is certainly a
red flag.
More like a chicken and egg story, maybe? If I were to provide a testing
framework, I'd very much like to use that testing framework for testing.
<insert picture of a dog chasing its own tail>
Anyway, I'll contact upstream asking them about it. It's the least I can
do. I'll also ask about the documentation link on PyPI, which points to
the RTD page of ye olde 👃.
-- Sandro
--
_______________________________________________
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
