On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 1:43 PM Jakub Jelen via devel <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 5:51 PM Neal Gompa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> With my FESCo hat on, I don't see myself reasonably considering to >> approve this change. The rationale is too weak. If you want to >> introduce an *additional* interface, sure, whatever. But as it stands, >> this juice is not worth the squeeze. > > I agree that creating a different API and then switching to that is longer > way, > but I see it as a less painful one. If we would go with change of underlying > macro > it means we need to fix all packages by some time, otherwise they will fail > to build. > If the consensus about the name or the process will be different, > I am open for discussion.
I might note that replacing the existing implementation also makes it pretty much a non-starter to also backport this change to earlier Fedora versions, which is something that quite a few people have asked about by now. The way I see it, we can either keep the name and just change the underlying implementation, *or* also make the new implementation available on older releases. But not both. And I would prefer the less-disruptive (i.e. new macro) option :) Fabio -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
