On July 7, 2021 9:14:34 PM UTC, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:21:08PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
>> What would be considered sufficient research about usage of guile? If
>> package provides it as optional feature among many other features,
>how
>> should
Neal Gompa writes:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:06 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> I hope a reasonable summary is:
>>
>> * The core toolchain maintainers don't want guile to be a requirement.
>>
>> * The guile maintainers don't want guile to be a dependency of the
>> core toolchain
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 17:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:21:08PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> > What would be considered sufficient research about usage of guile? If
> > package provides it as optional feature among many other features, how
> > should package
On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:21:08PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
What would be considered sufficient research about usage of guile? If
package provides it as optional feature among many other features, how
should package owner test one feature
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:21:08PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> What would be considered sufficient research about usage of guile? If
> package provides it as optional feature among many other features, how
> should package owner test one feature is still demanded? Do we have any
> best practice?
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:27:39PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Fabio Valentini:
>
> > If it turns out that really actually nobody uses this, why not drop it
> > upstream, and have the guile support removal come with the next GNU
> > toolchain Change for Fedora?
>
> Guile support in GNU
On 07. 07. 21 17:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
Is there scope for having self-contained changes implicitly
approved 2 weeks after being posted to Fedora devel list
in absence of controversy ? In that 2 week period, if someone
raises an objection that does not get a satisfactorily resolved
through
On 7/7/21 2:21 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:38 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Neal Gompa:
>>>
Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>>> Guile.
* Stephen John Smoogen:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 11:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Stephen John Smoogen:
>>
>> > C) This proposal was reviewed and pushed again for F35 even if it is
>> > 'too late' because well this just doesn't sit well.
>>
>> This doesn't make sense to me—what is “this
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 11:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Stephen John Smoogen:
>
> > C) This proposal was reviewed and pushed again for F35 even if it is
> > 'too late' because well this just doesn't sit well.
>
> This doesn't make sense to me—what is “this proposal”, and how it was
> “pushed
* Stephen John Smoogen:
> C) This proposal was reviewed and pushed again for F35 even if it is
> 'too late' because well this just doesn't sit well.
This doesn't make sense to me—what is “this proposal”, and how it was
“pushed again”?
Thanks,
Florian
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 08:54, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
> > [1]:
> > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2021-02-03-15.00.log.html
>
> Maybe if the GNU Toolchain developers did not show up and there
> was no majority, then the right thing to do for Fesco would have
> been to
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:46 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:56:43AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm far less convinced FESCo formally voting is beneficial
> > > for (uncontroversial)
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:56:43AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >
> > I'm far less convinced FESCo formally voting is beneficial
> > for (uncontroversial) self-contained changes, where the goal
> > of the maintainer is largely just to make
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:22 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if the process we're following (as it is defined today)
> > is actually beneficial for self-contained changes ? Did having a
> > vote which rejected the change actually
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> I wonder if the process we're following (as it is defined today)
> is actually beneficial for self-contained changes ? Did having a
> vote which rejected the change actually improve Fedora, or was
> it just busy work that is better
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:09:47PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Hans de Goede:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >>> * Neal Gompa:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:06:16PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> * The guile maintainers don't want guile to be a dependency of the
> core toolchain either.
It was pointed out to me off list that this statement isn't accurate -
I confused a toolchain maintainer with a guile maintainer.
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:09:47PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Hans de Goede:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>> * Neal Gompa:
> >>>
> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >>>
> >>> We have a mandate
Hi,
On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Hans de Goede:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Neal Gompa:
>>>
Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>>
>>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>>> Guile. Naturally that makes
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:06 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>
> I hope a reasonable summary is:
>
> * The core toolchain maintainers don't want guile to be a requirement.
>
> * The guile maintainers don't want guile to be a dependency of the
> core toolchain either.
>
> * With a small
I hope a reasonable summary is:
* The core toolchain maintainers don't want guile to be a requirement.
* The guile maintainers don't want guile to be a dependency of the
core toolchain either.
* With a small adjustment, Makefiles which use guile can be changed
even if make itelf doesn't
Hi,
On 7/7/21 1:53 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:38 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Neal Gompa:
>>>
Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>>
>>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>>>
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 8:14 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Hans de Goede:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Neal Gompa:
> >>
> >>> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >>
> >> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> >> Guile.
* Daniel P. Berrangé:
> What's notable to me is that, generally speaking, maintainers use
> their own discretion as to which optional features they enable
> or disable with a package built in Fedora. I'd expect that in most
> cases similar to this a maintainer will just disable the feature,
> do
* Fabio Valentini:
> If it turns out that really actually nobody uses this, why not drop it
> upstream, and have the guile support removal come with the next GNU
> toolchain Change for Fedora?
Guile support in GNU packages is a goal of the GNU project, I think.
Where Guile is used as a scripting
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:38 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Neal Gompa:
> >
> >> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >
> > We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> > Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather
* Hans de Goede:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Neal Gompa:
>>
>>> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>
>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
>
> So I've gone and checked the
On 07. 07. 21 13:38, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Neal Gompa:
Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
So I've gone and checked the
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:38:18PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Neal Gompa:
> >
> >> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >
> > We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> > Guile. Naturally that makes updates
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:38 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Neal Gompa:
> >
> >> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >
> > We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> > Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather
Hi,
On 7/7/21 1:33 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:18 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Neal Gompa:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:08 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
* Neal Gompa:
> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
We have a mandate from Fesco that the
Hi,
On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Neal Gompa:
>
>> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>
> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
So I've gone and checked the Fesco issue where dropping guile
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:18 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Neal Gompa:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:08 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Neal Gompa:
> >>
> >> > Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >>
> >> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> >> Guile.
* Neal Gompa:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:08 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Neal Gompa:
>>
>> > Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>
>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
>
> Are you telling me that GNU
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:08 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Neal Gompa:
>
> > Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>
> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
>
Are you telling me that GNU Make doesn't support GNU
* Neal Gompa:
> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 6:08 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > guile22 mlichvar, orphan 1 weeks
> > ago
>
> There's a dependency chain going from guile22 -> gnutls-devel -> lots
> of
38 matches
Mail list logo
