On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Peter Rabbitson
wrote:
> Copying a rhetorical question from #distzilla here, as it warrants a wider
> audience. The background is yet another discussion of a kludgy workaround
> where an installation with an older JSON parser is tripped by
* David Golden [2016-02-27 13:25]:
> The more interesting question is "why are we using META for installation"
Because we can’t go back in time and make historical versions of EUMM/MB
*not* use META for installation. End of line.
> If the problem is with MYMETA, I have no problem
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> Copying a rhetorical question from #distzilla here, as it warrants a wider
> audience. The background is yet another discussion of a kludgy workaround
> where an installation with an older JSON parser is tripped by
On 28 February 2016 at 00:06, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> perhaps rethinking "Meta for end-user install purposes" and
> "Meta for meta" would solve most of the recent repeated breakages by "oh
> downstream doesn't like this new thingymagic"
+1
I've been frustrated by this
Copying a rhetorical question from #distzilla here, as it warrants a
wider audience. The background is yet another discussion of a kludgy
workaround where an installation with an older JSON parser is tripped by
unicode in META.json. Unicode that doesn't really serve any purpose for
an
5 matches
Mail list logo