Hello,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2017-01-14 06:45, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
On
On 2017-01-14 06:45, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2017 5:54:41 PM
On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 11:10 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> praiskup wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Cool. Let's provide 'pkgconf' so we can be also three, too! But
> > at the
> > same time please consider not dropping 'pkgconfig' for no reason.
>
> ... and also let's make sure that the new package
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:10:59 -0500
f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote:
> praiskup wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Cool. Let's provide 'pkgconf' so we can be also three, too! But
> > at the same time please consider not dropping 'pkgconfig' for no
> > reason.
>
> ... and also let's make sure
praiskup wrote:
> [...]
> Cool. Let's provide 'pkgconf' so we can be also three, too! But at the
> same time please consider not dropping 'pkgconfig' for no reason.
... and also let's make sure that the new package does not break builds.
For one of ours, the .spec file contained:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:45:48AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Adam Williamson
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 09:51 -0500, Neal Gompa
Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Cool. Let's provide 'pkgconf' so we can be also three, too! But at the
> same time please consider not dropping 'pkgconfig' for no reason.
It's not "no reason". The reason is to provide a drop-in replacement, which
necessarily requires using the same binary name. At that
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> Neal Gompa wrote:
>> Because pkgconf supports the full specification, including Provides
>> rules. pkgconfig does not. It's been *years* and they never added
>> support for it. It's even documented to be a stub
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Hi Neal!
>
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:51:39 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
>> > I hope no. Can you be precise here? I'm all for protecting Fedora's
>> > interests.;
>>
>> I strongly believe in Fedora's
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 19:35 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> You argue that the change should be mostly painless, but without
>> providing any details: why not rebuild a 10 or 100 or 1000
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 09:51 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> And being afraid of
>> switching to a different and fully compatible implementation of
>> pkg-config just because it's not the implementation we've
On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 19:35 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> You argue that the change should be mostly painless, but without
> providing any details: why not rebuild a 10 or 100 or 1000 packages
> in a mock root with pkgconf-pkg-config? Even if there are some minor
> hiccups, at least
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:45:48AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 09:51 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> And being afraid of
> >> switching to a different and fully compatible implementation
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> Neal Gompa wrote:
>> Because pkgconf supports the full specification, including Provides
>> rules. pkgconfig does not. It's been *years* and they never added
>> support for it. It's even documented to be a stub
Neal Gompa wrote:
> Because pkgconf supports the full specification, including Provides
> rules. pkgconfig does not. It's been *years* and they never added
> support for it. It's even documented to be a stub implementation in
> pkgconfig. As a result of pkgconf fully implementing the Provides
>
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Hi Neal!
>
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:51:39 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
>> > I hope no. Can you be precise here? I'm all for protecting Fedora's
>> > interests.;
>>
>> I strongly believe in Fedora's
Hi Neal!
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:51:39 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I hope no. Can you be precise here? I'm all for protecting Fedora's
> > interests.;
>
> I strongly believe in Fedora's Foundations[0], which include a commitment to
> "excellence" and "innovation".
I hope it all is
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 09:51 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> And being afraid of
>> switching to a different and fully compatible implementation of
>> pkg-config just because it's not the implementation we've used
On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 09:51 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> And being afraid of
> switching to a different and fully compatible implementation of
> pkg-config just because it's not the implementation we've used for
> over a decade is contrary to those values.
But...you just said yourself it's not
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 7:45:05 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
>> >> On
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 7:45:05 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup
> >> wrote:
> >>
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>> > On Friday, January 13, 2017 5:54:41 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>> >> Doh
22 matches
Mail list logo