Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 25, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Mark Hatle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 11/25/16 5:07 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> >>> On Nov 24, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Alexander Kanavin >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/22/2016 06:10 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> Again: I cannot do much more than suggest porting approaches unless I can >>>> attempt reproducers. >>>> Please try to expose your git repositories somehow, either publicly or >>>> privately. >>> >>> Here it is: >>> >>> https://github.com/kanavin/libhif/commits/master >>> >> >> Good. I will take a look at your libhif efforts. Note that libhif is only >> one of several repositories that are going to be needed. >> >> FWIW, your invitation expired or is otherwise unusable (but at least >> I can read your code, todo++). >> >> (aside) >> Before we go too much further here: >> >> What is the intent of this collaboration? > > The functional goal in this work is to stop using smart in the Yocto Project > and > switch to DNF. (We've found nothing else that is a reasonable alternative > that > is still under active development.) > This part I understand (from conversations mid-summer). > As far as the way things are done, I'll leave that between you, Alexander and > anyone else interested. > We're getting there ... perhaps some OpenMandriva involvement after their weekly meeting 11am EST next Wed. I believe there is PLD interest as well, perhaps a few other efforts interested in collaborating too. hth 73 de Jeff > --Mark > >> You have chosen to fork libhif from >> rpm-software-management/libhif >> <https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libhif> >> rather than a fork (of a fork) from >> https://github.com/rpm5/libhif >> >> That forces our coordination to be pulled from the only common >> root at >> rpm-software-management/libhif >> <https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libhif> >> which almost certainly precludes any participation from me and rpm5.org >> <http://rpm5.org> >> for various reasons. >> >> Note that there are several other efforts attempting a dnf->…->rpm5 tool >> chain >> that I >> am aware of. Which is why I attempted RPM5 repositories to permit >> collaboration, and >> am perfectly willing to give write access to anyone who wishes. >> >> I am also perfectly willing to let someone other than rpm5.org >> <http://rpm5.org> >> administrate the mess if that >> is what is desired. I do encourage all of you to collaborate early and work >> forward from >> working tools. There’s a fair amount of subtle work that will be needed imho. >> >> What is your intent: collaboration with rpm5.org <http://rpm5.org> or >> collaboration with rpm-software-management? >> >>> I've fixed what I could by adding rpm5 includes, but the remaining build >>> issues are all caused by actual API incompatibilities between 4 and 5. I can >>> file them as separate github issues if you want. >>> >> >> Um rpm5.org <http://rpm5.org> and rpm.org <http://rpm.org> have different >> API’s, >> and are most definitely different >> implementations these days. Its not just include files, and more than libhif >> is >> going to >> be needed to build a working dnf->…->rpm5 tool chain. >> >> I’ll take a look at your libhif this weekend. >> >> 73 de Jeff >>> Alex >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org >>> User Communication List [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > ______________________________________________________________________ > RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org > User Communication List [email protected] ______________________________________________________________________ RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org User Communication List [email protected]
