Dne 16. 10. 23 v 16:53 Benson Muite napsal(a):
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?
No need for a review.
Would still need to have dependencies of the latest version of faraday reviewed.
Yes indeed. Without the dependencies, we would not be able to bump the rubygem-faraday into version 2.
Maybe it is conveniient to do this in a sidetag https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Update_Guide/#multiple_packages
Maybe Vít
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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
