Yeah, let's please just stop this thread? I can't see anything further
productive coming out of it. Thank you.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Saturday, 18 July 2020 at 12:19, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 1:21 AM Anthony F McInerney wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 04:19, John M. Harris Jr
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:11:19 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> >> > there was no reason not to
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 1:21 AM Anthony F McInerney wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 04:19, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:11:19 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>> > there was no reason not to replac it with regular apt
>>
>> Nico touched on these already, but
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 06:29, John M. Harris Jr
wrote:
> On Friday, July 17, 2020 10:20:54 PM MST Anthony F McInerney wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 04:19, John M. Harris Jr
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:11:19 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > > > there was no reason
On Friday, July 17, 2020 10:20:54 PM MST Anthony F McInerney wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 04:19, John M. Harris Jr
>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:11:19 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > > there was no reason not to replac it with regular apt
> >
> > Nico touched on these
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 04:19, John M. Harris Jr
wrote:
> On Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:11:19 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > there was no reason not to replac it with regular apt
>
> Nico touched on these already, but that's simply not possible. Rather,
> it's
> possible, but would
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:11:19 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> there was no reason not to replac it with regular apt
Nico touched on these already, but that's simply not possible. Rather, it's
possible, but would immediately break your system upon installing software
using apt.
--
John
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:15 AM Dridi Boukelmoune
wrote:
>
> > Oddly, the subject of the original post infers getting rid of rpm but
> > the post itself sounds like it's proposing something different and
> > that's why I decided to speak up.
>
> Yes, poor joke of mine, keeps hitting home though
> Oddly, the subject of the original post infers getting rid of rpm but
> the post itself sounds like it's proposing something different and
> that's why I decided to speak up.
Yes, poor joke of mine, keeps hitting home though :)
Ditching RPM in favor of DPKG was never meant to be a system-wide
On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 10:11 +, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > Simply put, "no". Debian and Ubuntu ".deb" packages too often don't
> > follow the File System Hierarchy, they may have different layouts
> > and
> > package naming capitalization schemes for matching Fedora packagers
> > like
> Simply put, "no". Debian and Ubuntu ".deb" packages too often don't
> follow the File System Hierarchy, they may have different layouts and
> package naming capitalization schemes for matching Fedora packagers
> like "PyYAML", they may have overlapping pre-set uids and mismatched
> group name
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:29 AM Dridi Boukelmoune
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:39 PM Dishant Pandya wrote:
> >
> > Its ok to have something that builds deb packages on Fedora, but in my
> > opinion RPM is far more better then debian packages. Also the Dnf and yum
> > package manager on
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:39 PM Dishant Pandya wrote:
>
> Its ok to have something that builds deb packages on Fedora, but in my
> opinion RPM is far more better then debian packages. Also the Dnf and yum
> package manager on Fedora are far more advanced than apt on Ubuntu and other
> Debian
Its ok to have something that builds deb packages on Fedora, but in my opinion
RPM is far more better then debian packages. Also the Dnf and yum package
manager on Fedora are far more advanced than apt on Ubuntu and other Debian
Based system.
I have been using fedora for over 2 years now and I
Its ok to have something that builds deb packages on Fedora, but in my opinion
RPM is far more better then debian packages. Also the Dnf and yum package
manager on Fedora are far more advanced than apt on Ubuntu and other Debian
Based system.
I have been using fedora for over 2 years now and I
On 2/21/19 8:22 PM, Japheth Cleaver wrote:
On 2/20/2019 7:29 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 2/20/19 5:19 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
No, that was a bad joke from my end, what I need is proper apt in
Fedora to use sbuild.
If you also do
On 2/20/2019 7:29 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 2/20/19 5:19 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
No, that was a bad joke from my end, what I need is proper apt in
Fedora to use sbuild.
If you also do the review-request for apt [1] it would be
Hi Graham,
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:23 PM Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2019, at 12:03, Dridi Boukelmoune
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings packagers,
> >
> > I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
> > everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
On 19 Feb 2019, at 12:03, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> Greetings packagers,
>
> I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
> everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
> have from day one.
DPKG solved the packaging problem, but was particularly
On Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 16:33, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:30 PM Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >
> > On 2/20/19 5:19 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > >> No, that was a bad joke from my end, what I need is
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 20:18 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 16:33 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:30 PM Panu Matilainen <
> > pmati...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/20/19 5:19 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 16:33 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:30 PM Panu Matilainen
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/20/19 5:19 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > > > No, that was a bad joke from my end, what I need is
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 16:31 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:20 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > > No, that was a bad joke from my end, what I need is proper apt in
> > > Fedora to use sbuild.
> >
> > If
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:30 PM Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> On 2/20/19 5:19 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> >> No, that was a bad joke from my end, what I need is proper apt in
> >> Fedora to use sbuild.
> >
> > If you also do the
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:20 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > No, that was a bad joke from my end, what I need is proper apt in
> > Fedora to use sbuild.
>
> If you also do the review-request for apt [1] it would be great
> dh-python also
On 2/20/19 5:19 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
No, that was a bad joke from my end, what I need is proper apt in
Fedora to use sbuild.
If you also do the review-request for apt [1] it would be great
dh-python also welcomed :) [2]
The
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> No, that was a bad joke from my end, what I need is proper apt in
> Fedora to use sbuild.
If you also do the review-request for apt [1] it would be great
dh-python also welcomed :) [2]
The problem is apt is in use by apt-rpm and was
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:04 AM Akarshan Biswas
wrote:
>
> > I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks everything
> > downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should have from day one.
>
> Doesn't we have flatpaks for that purpose?
No, that was a bad joke from
> I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks everything
> downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should have from day one.
Doesn't we have flatpaks for that purpose?
--
Akarshan Biswas
___
devel mailing list --
> I'm the debhelper maintainer
>
> where are your packages submissions ? (can you add me please )
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=gnu-config
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=strip-nondeterminism
I CC'd you just now. According to Neal we may not need to package GNU
config,
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 20:00 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > TLDR , apt-rpm should be retired because nobody use it since more
> > than
> > 10 years .
> >
> > I maintain a lot of debian package in Fedora but apt-debian still
> > not
> > on Official repos you can get it from my devel corp repo
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:08 PM Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 11:11, Dridi Boukelmoune
> wrote:
> [..]
>>
>> Apt is a mix of C, Perl and C++ code, so I would be reassured if I
>> could have a C++ co-maintainer too. I'm only a C developer so if
>> something goes wrong outside
> TLDR , apt-rpm should be retired because nobody use it since more than
> 10 years .
>
> I maintain a lot of debian package in Fedora but apt-debian still not
> on Official repos you can get it from my devel corp repo [1]
> My goal is make a system where rpm produce deb files , to allow Debian
>
> For what it's worth, this was a terrible lede for this email. And
I couldn't help it, my inner prankster insisted :)
> having worked extensively with both package managers, I can sincerely
> tell you both are ugly as hell, but rpm is less ugly than dpkg.
Yes, I'm not saying that rpm is
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 11:11, Dridi Boukelmoune
wrote:
[..]
> Apt is a mix of C, Perl and C++ code, so I would be reassured if I
> could have a C++ co-maintainer too. I'm only a C developer so if
> something goes wrong outside of the C realm that would be helpful.
>
Doesn't matter in what kind
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:16 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 08:21 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:40 AM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 11:03 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > > > Greetings packagers,
> > > >
> > > > I know
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 08:21 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:40 AM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 11:03 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > > Greetings packagers,
> > >
> > > I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
> > >
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:40 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 11:03 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > Greetings packagers,
> >
> > I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
> > everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
> > have
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 11:03 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> Greetings packagers,
>
> I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
> everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
> have from day one.
>
> I'm calling this initiative fedpkg: Fedora
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:06 AM Leigh Scott wrote:
>
> > Greetings packagers,
> >
> > I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
> > everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
> > have from day one.
> >
> > I'm calling this initiative fedpkg: Fedora
> Greetings packagers,
>
> I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
> everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
> have from day one.
>
> I'm calling this initiative fedpkg: Fedora Embraces DPKG.
>
> A bit of background here: I build both RPMs
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
> * Dridi Boukelmoune [19/02/2019 11:03] :
> >
> > Three of those packages are heavy on Perl code, and I'm not a Perl
> > Monk. I tried to CC perl-sig as per the guidelines [1] (also tried with
> > the mailing list address) but bugzilla
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:05 AM Dridi Boukelmoune
wrote:
>
> Greetings packagers,
>
> I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
> everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
> have from day one.
>
> I'm calling this initiative fedpkg: Fedora
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
> * Dridi Boukelmoune [19/02/2019 11:03] :
> >
> > Three of those packages are heavy on Perl code, and I'm not a Perl
> > Monk. I tried to CC perl-sig as per the guidelines [1] (also tried with
> > the mailing list address) but bugzilla
* Dridi Boukelmoune [19/02/2019 11:03] :
>
> Three of those packages are heavy on Perl code, and I'm not a Perl
> Monk. I tried to CC perl-sig as per the guidelines [1] (also tried with
> the mailing list address) but bugzilla replied kindly:
>
> CC: perl-sig did not match anything
The Perl
* Dridi Boukelmoune [19/02/2019 11:03] :
>
> Three of those packages are heavy on Perl code, and I'm not a Perl
> Monk. I tried to CC perl-sig as per the guidelines [1] (also tried with
> the mailing list address) but bugzilla replied kindly:
>
> CC: perl-sig did not match anything
The Perl
46 matches
Mail list logo
