Here is a proof-of-concept one-liner (split up a bit for readability purposes):
```fish
#!/usr/bin/fish
function get_dependent_pkgs
dnf -q repoquery --repo=koji --qf='%{sourcerpm}' --whatrequires $argv[1]
end
function parse_names
get_dependent_pkgs | rev | cut -d/ -f1 | cut -d- -f3- | re
[…]
This is getting out of hand, so I logged straight into the web client.
> Ok, I understand what's happening. Your email client doesn't recognize
> the in-reply-to option from the url.
Exactly; I will enquire and send a bug report.
> Why are replying from there instead of using your email cli
Thanks to everybody for the quick response. As you'll see in the ticket thread,
the maintainer is now handling the update.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora
Greetings,
The sole purpose of this thread is to bring attention to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646930
Unreliable time on the system is a daily annoyance that will be easily fixed by
aligning the Fedora version with the upstream's. Could someone ping the package
maintainer? Al
> So what? Why is that a problem?
> Does the libc++abi have better performance for exception handling?
> Smaller footprint for RTTI?
> More new features, such as C++17's std::uncaight_exceptions()?
> Just because there's a different low-level C++ runtime library
> available doesn't mean that using
> I'll take on the review,
Thank you so much for stepping in, this is mostly appreciated.
> but you really should consider becoming
> involved in Fedora as a packager, as any packager can review another
> packagers packages proposed for inclusion into Fedora.
I am a slow learner, but there is some
>> Alas, clang++ now needs to link against the GCC ABI to successfully compile.
> what actual problem is caused by that?
Please read instead “Alas, clang++ currently needs to link against the GCC ABI
to successfully compile.”
The problem is that one might want to use libstdc++ (GCC) and libc++ (L
> I'm not sure if I follow. Supporting multiple C++ ABIs would make
> things more complicated for developers because they now have to figure
> out which ABI their project needs and if all the libraries they want to
Greetings,
The LLVM project has been providing a C++ ABI for a while [1]. A naive user
like I'm would presume Fedora easily ships with that, as the saying goes:
“Fedora is a developer-friendly distro.” Unfortunately, that isn't the case for
this instance and if one is using clang++, they have t
