On 11-04-2024 13:54, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 04. 24 11:55, Sandro wrote:
While I ponder those thoughts some more, moving forward in either
direction, the next step would be writing a change proposal?
I'd start by:
Packaging pynose without hacks (only making it Conflict with nose, no
compatibility Provides, Obsoletes or dist-infos).
That way, pro-active packagers can switch already.
And the change proposal can then describe what will be *added* to
pynose, rather than describing the approach from scratch.
I put together a first draft for a change proposal [1]. The pynose
package has been reviewed and will be imported as soon as all fires have
been put out.
Miro, I added you as a proposal owner as per the comment "owners of all
affected packages need to be included here" since you are maintaining
python-nose.
I would appreciate a review from people having more experience witch
change proposals before I submit it.
Lumír, if you have a list of packages that are affected by the removal
of nose setup/teardown functions/methods, I can add them as a separate
bullet point list to the proposal as well as to the testing repo in Copr
and start working on those, porting them back to `nosetests`.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceNoseWithPynose
-- Sandro
--
_______________________________________________
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
