Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] LIBDNF - code reduction + important further changes

2017-12-01 Thread Neal Gompa
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 1 December 2017 at 08:52, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: >> I would prefer to apply patches to PackageKit and so on, if you will agree? > > Sure, as long as there are tarball releases we can depend on in

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] DNF team would like to take over libdnf ownership

2017-12-01 Thread Colin Walters
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017, at 05:48 AM, Daniel Mach wrote: > We are getting requests to implement more features in microdnf, > such as modularity[1][2], unify repo cache and overall business logic. > Porting big portions of existing DNF code (Python) into a C library > seems to be the only feasible

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] LIBDNF - code reduction + important further changes

2017-12-01 Thread Richard Hughes
On 1 December 2017 at 08:52, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > I would prefer to apply patches to PackageKit and so on, if you will agree? Sure, as long as there are tarball releases we can depend on in Fedora this is fine. Richard. ___

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] LIBDNF - code reduction + important further changes

2017-12-01 Thread Jaroslav Mracek
> Are you planning to submit patches to PackageKit for any API breakage? > Or is the library interface as used by PK unchanged? I would prefer to apply patches to PackageKit and so on, if you will agree? > My main concerns boil down to two things: > > 1. install/builddep need to be able to