https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367526
Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Review Request: brial - |Review Request: brial -
|BRiAl is the successor to |Framework for Boolean Rings
|PolyBoRi |
--- Comment #5 from Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #4)
> A few more fixes to make, all small. See below.
>
> (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #3)
> > Ok. Added the proper Obsoletes/Provides. Only sagemath uses it, so,
> > once a sagemath 7.3 package is available, polybori can be retired.
>
> I see Obsoletes/Provides for the -devel package, but not for the main
> package, nor for the python package. Shouldn't those Obsolete/Provide their
> polybori equivalents, too?
Only brial-devel conflicts with polybori-devel, so at first I
preferred to not create an artificial conflict, as runtimes can
be installed at the same time. But I can add it, as one doing
"serious" work depending on polybori (and not using brial) is
likely not using the system package.
> > Thanks. Changed to use the suggested pattern, that indeed corrects the
> > problem. On not yet released versions it should actually make use of gd
> > and png.
>
> The current code base only uses gd if m4ri has not been built with png
> support (and the Fedora version does have such support). Are you saying
> that the next version will use gd anyway?
I was going to ask upstream, but it was already asked :(
https://github.com/BRiAl/BRiAl/issues/6
> > I believe this is more of something to ask upstream, it explicitly
> > requires
> > python 2.7:
> > AM_PATH_PYTHON([2.7])
> > so, I believe this is a work in progress by upstream.
>
> Okay. It would be nice to provide the python 3 version when it is available.
Ok. The code is there, so upstream is more of in a waiting for
contributions as well. Something to do, but likely, upstream
sagemath is who has more resources for it.
> > I used the sagemath SPKG.txt text, but indeed it was not looking right.
> > Now it was changed the Summary to the same as polybori, and description
> > basically s/PolyBori/BRiAl/.
>
> Note that the very last sentence of %description still uses the word
> PolyBoRi.
Thanks! Fixed.
> Also, the bug title needs to match the %summary line before you request
> package creation.
Also fixed.
> There is no changelog entry in the spec file for your latest version.
Ops, sorry, fixed.
> Summary of changes to be made:
> 1. Obsoletes/provides for all packages, or a reason why that isn't needed.
> 2. Change one more instance of "PolyBoRi" in %description.
> 3. Add a changelog entry to the spec file for version 0.8.5-2.
> 4. Update the bug title with the current %summary in the spec file.
I can make a new srpm with Obsoletes/Provides for the
"non conflicting" polybori packages, as otherwise they may
sit without use on a system being updated from a previous
sagemath version, but should it also Obsoletes/Provides
the other polybori packages that brial does not (yet) have
an alternative? Those are
polybori-gui
polybori-docs
polybori-static # on purpose there is no alternative
polybori-ipbori
Spec URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/brial.spec
SRPM URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/brial-0.8.5-3.fc26.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
