On 10/16/23 14:08, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Additionally, what is the reason for having Faraday 2? It seems octokit > requires Faraday, but version 1 should be fine. I am not sure about > Licensee itself, but on the first look, it seems they are having some > troubles with Faraday 2, but I don't see there any direct dependency ... > > > Vít > > > > Dne 16. 10. 23 v 12:58 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >> Dear Benson, >> >> Yeah, the situation about Faraday is a bit unfortunate. I think that >> also rubygem-typhoeus depends on Faraday 1: >> >> https://github.com/typhoeus/typhoeus/blob/f5c5751df49089da89fc2683a23df04850a45604/Gemfile#L18 >> >> Nevertheless, would you be open to rather rename the current package >> to `rubygem-faraday1` and afterwards bump the `rubygem-faraday` to >> version 2? I understand it is more work initially, but it is better >> long term. That is ok, though there are dependencies for the latest version of faraday that are not in Fedora. Based on the guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Process/ Should I request a review of faraday1? Would still need to have dependencies of the latest version of faraday reviewed. Maybe it is conveniient to do this in a sidetag
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Update_Guide/#multiple_packages >> _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-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/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
