Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On 22 January 2018 at 12:21, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 22 January 2018 at 15:53, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > [,,] >> >> > OK so here you just gave me +1 for a). Thx. >> > >> >> No I didn't. It is clear that our versions of English are not syncing >>

Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On 22 January 2018 at 15:53, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: [,,] > > OK so here you just gave me +1 for a). Thx. > > > > No I didn't. It is clear that our versions of English are not syncing > up so I am not sure how to communicate clearly with you. You think I > am reading in

Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On 22 January 2018 at 00:29, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 22 January 2018 at 03:10, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> On 21 January 2018 at 15:54, Tomasz Kłoczko >> wrote: > > [..] >> >> > 8) Why we have %{centos} %ifings?

Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On 22 January 2018 at 12:10, Neal Gompa wrote: <<>> [..] > >> > 8) Why we have %{centos} %ifings? Theoretically Centos is EL derivate > up > >> > to > >> > ABI level so all this should be: > >> > > >> > a) removed > >> > b) replaced by %{el6} and %{el7} (and if it is

Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On 22 January 2018 at 03:39, Neal Gompa wrote: [..] > Personally, I'd like it to be easier to make multi-distro spec files > by leveraging the increasing commonality among distributions. It's > already not that bad these days, the main issue is what RPM features > are

Re: Re: Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

- Mail original - De: "Fabio Valentini" Hi, > I'm particularly looking forward to improvements regarding golang. The > automated .spec generation is nice for getting new packages started, but > maintaining those packages currently is a small nightmare in itself due to > brittle

Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 22 January 2018 at 03:10, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> On 21 January 2018 at 15:54, Tomasz Kłoczko >> wrote: > > [..] >> >> > 8) Why we have %{centos} %ifings?

Re: Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On Jan 22, 2018 11:32, wrote: - Mail original - De: "Stephen John Smoogen" > They pull in what they want to make it work and could > give a care if it is readable to anyone else. The problem is that past a certain point those become effectively

Re: Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

- Mail original - De: "Neal Gompa" > the main issue is what RPM features are supported for each target distribution. Making things less ugly for gracefully degrading would be very nice. :) Well it would be really nice if someone @downstream watched for Fedora packaging guidelines

Re: Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

- Mail original - De: "Stephen John Smoogen" > They pull in what they want to make it work and could > give a care if it is readable to anyone else. The problem is that past a certain point those become effectively unmaintainable and start dragging Fedora in the EL blackhole instead

Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

Hi, I can get a few hundreds of those disappear if the Go packaging guidelines I posted get accepted Otherwise, they are a symptom of technical debt accumulation in EL, nothing more Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list --

Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On 22 January 2018 at 03:39, Neal Gompa wrote: [..] > > Multi-distro spec files in itself aren't that bad. In my experience, > the things that drag you down are the Debian/Ubuntu and RHEL/SLE > targets. But they eventually catch up. However, the sad reality is, > you can only

Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On 22 January 2018 at 03:10, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 21 January 2018 at 15:54, Tomasz Kłoczko > wrote: > [..] > > 8) Why we have %{centos} %ifings? Theoretically Centos is EL derivate up > to > > ABI level so all this should be: > > > > a)

Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 21 January 2018 at 15:54, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: >> As preface some oneliner result: >> > >> 8) Why we have %{centos} %ifings? Theoretically Centos is EL derivate up to >> ABI level so

Re: EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

On 21 January 2018 at 15:54, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > As preface some oneliner result: > > 8) Why we have %{centos} %ifings? Theoretically Centos is EL derivate up to > ABI level so all this should be: > > a) removed > b) replaced by %{el6} and %{el7} (and if it is

EPEL analyse/observation, some question, PR proposals/questions and more ..

As preface some oneliner result: [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ for i in el4 el5 el6 el7 rhel centos epel; do echo -n "$i "; grep '%{?'$i * | wc -l; done el4 10 el5 243 el6 265 el7 281 rhel 5428 centos 239 epel 45 1) Shortly I'm going to create PR with mass change request to remove all EL4 and