Dne 25.8.2015 v 14:11 Florian Festi napsal(a):
> Hi!
>
> I have been visiting Michael Schröder discussing the syntax for the rich
> deps [1]. There are still a few issues we like to get some input from
> the wider community:
>
> IF Operator
> ===
> We concluded that the most important quest
Dne 25.8.2015 v 17:16 Florian Festi napsal(a):
> On 08/25/2015 02:50 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 25.8.2015 v 14:11 Florian Festi napsal(a):
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I have been visiting Michael Schröder discussing the syntax for the
>>> rich deps [1]. The
Dne 26.8.2015 v 14:00 Florian Festi napsal(a):
> On 08/26/2015 10:47 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
>> Right now libsolv does not distinguish between different orders of the
>> operands. But we have already discussed making the OR operator
>> preferring the left most operand. This is something RPM does n
I would prefer if the language specific macros are not part of RPM at
all. For Ruby on Fedora, we keep them part of Ruby package and it works
just fine. Not sure why it should not be case for other languages (and I
hope that for example Fedora's Perl guys are working toward this goal).
Vít
Dne
Dne 4.3.2016 v 15:58 Florian Festi napsal(a):
> On 03/04/2016 01:02 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> I would prefer if the language specific macros are not part of RPM
>> at all. For Ruby on Fedora, we keep them part of Ruby package and it
>> works just fine. Not sure why it s
Actually is this really DNF issue?
DNF resolves the dependencies properly and installs what can be
installed. E.g. it keeps the kernel-core-4.6.1-1 which is compatible
with the module on the system as long as the module is installed, while
nothing prohibits installation of more recent kernel.
The
Dne 6.10.2016 v 12:26 Florian Festi napsal(a):
> On 10/06/2016 12:16 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Actually is this really DNF issue?
>>
>> DNF resolves the dependencies properly and installs what can be
>> installed. E.g. it keeps the kernel-core-4.6.1-1 which is compa
Dne 3.2.2017 v 13:14 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
>
> Stunned silence on rpm-maint, forwarding to rpm-ecosystem in hopes of
> a larger and livelier audience...
>
> - Panu -
>
> Forwarded Message
> Subject: [Rpm-maint] Fixing macro scoping
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:30:21 +020
Dne 6.2.2017 v 16:00 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
>
> One open question I have is what to do with %undefine's: currently rpm
> allows %undefining anything from any scope, and that is at odds with
> any attempt to rationalize and formalize the scoping to something
> actually comprehensible. A simple
Dne 6.2.2017 v 19:43 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
> On 02/06/2017 06:51 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dne 6.2.2017 v 16:00 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
>>>
>>> One open question I have is what to do with %undefine's: currently rpm
>>> allows %un
Dne 18.2.2017 v 13:40 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Panu Matilainen
> wrote:
>> On 02/07/2017 10:04 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dne 6.2.2017 v 19:43 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
>>>> On 02/06/2017 06:51 PM, Vít On
Dne 28.7.2017 v 14:57 Colin Walters napsal(a):
> Hi, so we just completed an implementation of %transfiletriggerin for
> rpm-ostree:
> https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/pull/869
>
> Quick aside: why did we need to do that? Because rpm-ostree implements
> "offline"
> updates (while st
I am wondering, what is the content of the repository actually. Which
branch should be used and which is source for the readthedocs.io.
It seems to me that the "master" branch is source for the
readthedocs.io, while the contributions goes to "publish" branch?
Vít
Dne 24.10.2017 v 08:54 Mirosla
Aha, so the result is likely visible at
https://rpm-packaging-guide.github.io/ . The readthedocs.io is the
original documentation which was taken as foundation to this effort as
far as I can tell ...
Vít
Dne 24.10.2017 v 09:59 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> I am wondering, what is the content of
Jonathan,
Have you experimented with casync [1]?
Vít
[1] https://github.com/systemd/casync
Dne 13.2.2018 v 10:52 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
> CCing rpm-ecosystem@ ML since it's main location where this message
> should have
> went 😉
>
> On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 23:53 +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
Dne 28.6.2018 v 12:43 Jonathan Dieter napsal(a):
> Pull requests to enable zchunk support in librepo, libsolv, dnf, libdnf
> and createrepo_c are at:
>
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/librepo/pull/127
> https://github.com/openSUSE/libsolv/pull/270
> https://github.com/rpm-software-
I would have use for %optional:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scl-utils/pull-request/1
Let me explain. scl-utils 2.x introduced support for environment
modules. They are now enforcing existence of modulefile. However, the
modulefile is not available in SCLs prepared for scl-utils 1.x and
mor
Dne 24.7.2018 v 20:41 Jeff Johnson napsal(a):
>
>> On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:42 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>> I would have use for %optional:
>>
>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scl-utils/pull-request/1
>>
>> Let me explain. scl-utils 2.x introduced
Dne 9.8.2018 v 07:34 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM Pascal Terjan wrote:
>> On 7 August 2018 at 09:50, Michael Schroeder wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 04:36:07PM +, Zbigniew J??drzejewski-Szmek
>>> wrote:
this mail is a continuation of an FPC [1] and a FE
19 matches
Mail list logo
