Dne 20. 07. 23 v 19:10 Paul Howarth napsal(a):
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 14:10:37 +0200
Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 10. 07. 23 v 10:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Hi,
libtomcrypt
So this is the dependency chain:
libtomcrypt <= python3-crypto <= python3-beaker <= python3-mako
I raised
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 14:10:37 +0200
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 10. 07. 23 v 10:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > libtomcrypt
> >
>
> So this is the dependency chain:
>
> libtomcrypt <= python3-crypto <= python3-beaker <= python3-mako
I raised
(adding the list back on CC, since it seems this went private just by
mistake)
You know, my initial email listed 4 packages and removal of them might
result in saving of tens of MBs. They are small on itself but they pull
in much bigger dependency chains. And that typically happens just by
(sorry, first reply was sent privately, doing again to include list)
Seems like you may have not considered the translations angle, so let me
spin it another way...
If I adjusted where translations are packaged (put with -libs), so that the
base 'exiv2' package was < 1mb (~200k uncompressed),
1) I am sure I never had any need to use the exiv2 executable and I
would be surprised if majority of Fedora users had different experience
2) I don't understand what else then space saving and e.g. optimization
of install media should be the reason for the split.
But given that the split as
I don't see any good reason to change here. Mostly because the status quo
is already a compromise to leave the base package as an optional Recommends
(ie, removable).
This is considering that most of the space in question here are
translations, that strictly-speaking, probably ought to be
On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 14:42, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 13. 07. 23 v 14:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> > Dne 10. 07. 23 v 10:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> > > exiv2
> > >
> > So this is pulled in by exiv2-libs:
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exiv2/blob/rawhide/f/exiv2.spec#_53-58
> >
(now hopefully with correct maintainer email)
Dne 13. 07. 23 v 14:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 10. 07. 23 v 10:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
exiv2
So this is pulled in by exiv2-libs:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exiv2/blob/rawhide/f/exiv2.spec#_53-58
I am not sure I agree with the
Dne 10. 07. 23 v 10:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
exiv2
So this is pulled in by exiv2-libs:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exiv2/blob/rawhide/f/exiv2.spec#_53-58
I am not sure I agree with the comment `# not strictly required, but
convenient and expected`. But I think dependencies like
Dne 13. 07. 23 v 14:10 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 10. 07. 23 v 10:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Hi,
libtomcrypt
So this is the dependency chain:
libtomcrypt <= python3-crypto <= python3-beaker <= python3-mako
Where python3-mako is require by rhythmbox, which is understandably
part of the
Dne 10. 07. 23 v 10:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Hi,
libtomcrypt
So this is the dependency chain:
libtomcrypt <= python3-crypto <= python3-beaker <= python3-mako
Where python3-mako is require by rhythmbox, which is understandably part
of the basic installation. But is the rest really
Dne 11. 07. 23 v 12:47 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
On 11. 07. 23 12:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 10. 07. 23 10:38, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I have recently installed Fedora Rawhide via netinstall and there
are some questionable packages installed by default, such as:
...
libxcrypt-compat
...
and
Dne 10. 07. 23 v 20:31 Daniel Walsh napsal(a):
On 7/10/23 05:00, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
Hi Vit
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:38 AM Vít Ondruch
wrote:
Hi,
I have recently installed Fedora Rawhide via netinstall and there are
some questionable packages installed by default, such as:
cpp
On 11. 07. 23 12:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 10. 07. 23 10:38, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I have recently installed Fedora Rawhide via netinstall and there are some
questionable packages installed by default, such as:
...
libxcrypt-compat
...
and I wonder what is the mechanism, which pulls
On 10. 07. 23 10:38, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I have recently installed Fedora Rawhide via netinstall and there are some
questionable packages installed by default, such as:
...
libxcrypt-compat
...
and I wonder what is the mechanism, which pulls these in?
$ rpm -q --recommends
On 7/10/23 05:00, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
Hi Vit
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:38 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I have recently installed Fedora Rawhide via netinstall and there are
some questionable packages installed by default, such as:
cpp
libtomcrypt
libxcrypt-compat
exiv2
and I wonder what
Dne 10. 07. 23 v 11:07 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 11:00, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
[...]
Can't comment on all the packages you listed
Thank you for chiming in.
, but the C preprocessor
(CPP) is indeed required by xrdb (that's an option in xrdb, see
On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 11:00, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
[...]
> Can't comment on all the packages you listed, but the C preprocessor
> (CPP) is indeed required by xrdb (that's an option in xrdb, see "-cpp"
> in man xrdb) and xrdb itself is required by GDM:
>
Hi Vit
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:38 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have recently installed Fedora Rawhide via netinstall and there are
> some questionable packages installed by default, such as:
>
> cpp
> libtomcrypt
> libxcrypt-compat
> exiv2
>
> and I wonder what is the mechanism, which
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 10:38:18 +0200
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have recently installed Fedora Rawhide via netinstall and there are
> some questionable packages installed by default, such as:
>
> cpp
> libtomcrypt
> libxcrypt-compat
> exiv2
>
> and I wonder what is the mechanism, which
Hi,
I have recently installed Fedora Rawhide via netinstall and there are
some questionable packages installed by default, such as:
cpp
libtomcrypt
libxcrypt-compat
exiv2
and I wonder what is the mechanism, which pulls these in? For example,
there is not much what would depend on cpp:
~~~
21 matches
Mail list logo
