> On 2 May 2017 at 11:14, David Sommerseth wrote:
>> Show us a dist-git repos we can clone and run 'fedpkg mockbuild' and see
>> how this works for _Fedora_.
>>
>> How things are done in various other distributions doesn't mean it can
>> be re-used directly in Fedora. And that tweaking is somethi
On 02/05/17 08:18, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 1 May 2017 at 14:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> Tomasz, as I'm sure you know, our entire OS-creation infrastructure is
>> built around RPM. Suggesting we switch to another system is an ENORMOUS
>
> Seems you did not read what I wrote careful.
> *I'm not
On 1 May 2017 at 14:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Tomasz, as I'm sure you know, our entire OS-creation infrastructure is
> built around RPM. Suggesting we switch to another system is an ENORMOUS
Seems you did not read what I wrote careful.
*I'm not suggesting switching to IPS.*
I've pointed on IPS
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 08:55:13AM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 30 April 2017 at 15:33, David Sommerseth wrote:
> > Point us at some patches, git repos, .spec files, *whatever* which uses
> > your approach so we can see and get experience on how to resolve it.
> David I've already send few ti
On 30 April 2017 at 15:33, David Sommerseth wrote:
> Point us at some patches, git repos, .spec files, *whatever* which uses
> your approach so we can see and get experience on how to resolve it.
David I've already send few times URL to IPS source repo :)
Here it is one more time https://java.net
On 29/04/17 20:31, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>
>> As the saying goes: Talk is cheap!
> And this is what exactly I'm doing ..
And it is incredibly tiring with all your words. Lets try another
idiom: Don't talk the walk; walk the walk
Point us at some patches, git repos, .spec files, *whatever* whic
On 29 April 2017 at 22:30, Reindl Harald wrote:
> given that i run Fedora fpr a decade on everyting from production servers to
> routers and desktops and reading all of your posts of the last week - well,
> i have no idea what your problem is
Looks like we have completely different jobs .. just a
On 29 April 2017 at 19:14, Reindl Harald wrote:
> but you are coming in several threads and tell everybody that Fedora has to
> be built completly different while the logical answer would be: well, if
> everything in Fedora is not the way you like it then Fedora probably just
> isn't for you?
Is
On 29 April 2017 at 18:29, Neal Gompa wrote:
> There's plenty of stuff going on in rpm.org upstream. You can look for
> yourself: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm
Seems none is going to provide %doc and %lang() generalisation to
allow mark more than current 5 classes of the files wi
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
> On 28 April 2017 at 21:32, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> You do keep saying that it's easy. What I'm saying is that it's easy to
>> say things are easy, but... from experience, usually they are not. If
>> it *is* that easy, why not make a proof
On 28 April 2017 at 21:32, Matthew Miller wrote:
> You do keep saying that it's easy. What I'm saying is that it's easy to
> say things are easy, but... from experience, usually they are not. If
> it *is* that easy, why not make a proof of concept? In any case, taking
> them to the RPM project ups
On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 21:09 +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Can you tell us something about those priorities
Hi,
I've been generally speaking. Your "priority" is obviously IPS. Mine
not. Read the very first mail in this thread, to see my priorities and
why I started it.
> or maybe point to
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:17:19PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> I've already tried at least two times pointing not on something which
> is in development stage but is working and is used on enterprise
> systems for many years and is fully Open Source.
> What I've already know quite well is that s
On 28 April 2017 at 14:58, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Again, please try "mode=constructive" for best results.
I've already tried at least two times pointing not on something which
is in development stage but is working and is used on enterprise
systems for many years and is fully Open Source.
What I
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 at 09:19, Milan Crha wrote:
> Different
> people has different point of view, different opinions, different
> priorities.
>
Can you tell us something about those priorities or maybe point to some URL
where those priorities are listed?
I'm not like you RedHat employee so I hav
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:29:19PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> So far *only* argument was that his split may save ~1GB on ftp server.
> [mode=sarcastic]
> If Fedora Foundation is in so big financial troubles I can donate 1GB
> SD card out of my pocket (probably 2-3 pounds with delivery to US).
>
On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 13:10 +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> So you guys want to say that you never heard that in %files is
> possible to add %lang() tokens
Hi,
no, I never heard about that, though I'm not a good packager, thus it
doesn't mean much. Though it can be because %lang() is way to
Hi,
On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 19:25 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> No generall agreement for such changes, ignoring already mentioned
> arguments.
> Seems only just because "we can".
Nope, you are wrong. I gave clear explanation why I did so. Sure, some
people, like you, might not like it. Ok
On 27 April 2017 at 22:42, Björn 'besser82' Esser <
besse...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Fedora currently has about 19k packages in each maintained release /
branch,
> thats a total of about 76k packages. If such a little change saves about
> 100KB of storage in average for every single package, i
On 27 April 2017 at 22:34, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> So far *only* argument was that his split may save ~1GB on ftp server.
>> [mode=sarcastic]
>
> no
Gosh .. so seems like I've lost few emails in this thread!!!
Could you please forward on my prv email address this email with other
than this "1GB"
Am 27.04.2017 um 22:29 schrieb Tomasz Kłoczko:
On 27 April 2017 at 21:54, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 27.04.2017 um 21:50 schrieb Tomasz Kłoczko:
OK so what kind of problem solves those changes? Can I have look on some
bugzilla entry?
split packages where it *really* matters instead create thousa
On 27 April 2017 at 21:54, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 27.04.2017 um 21:50 schrieb Tomasz Kłoczko:
>>
>> OK so what kind of problem solves those changes? Can I have look on some
>> bugzilla entry?
>
> split packages where it *really* matters instead create thousands of small
> rpm packages where the
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:50:40PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> OK so what kind of problem solves those changes? Can I have look on some
> bugzilla entry?
Talking to the maintainers of that package nicely is generally the best
approach. Or even better, *build* that better approach and *show*.
Te
OK so what kind of problem solves those changes? Can I have look on some
bugzilla entry?
kloczek
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 at 21:47, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:25:32PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> > Seems like splitting langpacks subpackages in all evolution packages few
> >
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:25:32PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Seems like splitting langpacks subpackages in all evolution packages few
> minutes ago just started.
> No generall agreement for such changes, ignoring already mentioned
> arguments.
> Seems only just because "we can".
That's true.
Seems like splitting langpacks subpackages in all evolution packages few
minutes ago just started.
No generall agreement for such changes, ignoring already mentioned
arguments.
Seems only just because "we can".
Guys if you are bored just please undress, sit down next to your clothes
and watch your
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:07:34PM +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> I did with evolution core packages what I thought is the best. I do not
> use weak dependencies, I define a hard dependency between the langpacks
> and the binary package, both ways, thus users get either both or none
> of them. That mak
On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 13:31 +0200, David Tardon wrote:
> There is a reason that libreoffice puts l10n data into separate
> subpackages.
Hi,
yes, there is a very good reason for it and I'm not questioning that.
libreoffice was just an example of a package which does that already,
but also f
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 06:15:49PM +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 08:18 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > If we went this route, I'd love to see us attempt to solve this
> > generically for all packages if at all possible.
>
> My main issue with libreoffice langpacks divid
On 26 April 2017 at 17:41, Neal Gompa wrote:
> The problem with this approach is that it's not possible for the user
> to get additional locale content without reinstalling after enabling
> another locale (by installing the associated system langpack package
> that controls this). Splitting them o
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
> On 25 April 2017 at 01:16, Rafal Luzynski
> wrote:
>>
>> But for small packages which have not so many translatable
>> messages producing dozens of small RPMs ~1 kilobyte each or even
>> less would doesn't sound like a good solution. So I s
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 01:16:44AM +0200, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> But for small packages which have not so many translatable
> messages producing dozens of small RPMs ~1 kilobyte each or even
> less would doesn't sound like a good solution. So I suggest to
> introduce this feature but not globally
Hello all,
I agree with Rafal. I think that in the case of small or medium
packages this would be counterproductive.
Kind regards,Silvia
On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 01:16 +0200, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> 24.04.2017 12:47 Milan Crha wrote:
> > [...]
> > I know I can do this for packages I maintain, but
On 25 April 2017 at 01:16, Rafal Luzynski
wrote:
>
> But for small packages which have not so many translatable
> messages producing dozens of small RPMs ~1 kilobyte each or even
> less would doesn't sound like a good solution. So I suggest to
> introduce this feature but not globally and obligato
24.04.2017 12:47 Milan Crha wrote:
> [...]
> I know I can do this for packages I maintain, but I though it would
> make sense to think of it globally. Maybe?
>
> Bye,
> Milan
If I may drop my 2¢… this sounds good to me for large packages,
for example LibreOffice, glibc and KDE which do it already
On 24 April 2017 at 20:37, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> These days, I think we divide langpacks (at least at the distro/glibc
> level) by language rather than country.
>
> I have `langpacks-en` on my system, for example.
>
Yep .. "these days" glibc is one of the best anti examples about how to
wri
On 04/24/2017 12:15 PM, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 08:18 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> If we went this route, I'd love to see us attempt to solve this
>> generically for all packages if at all possible.
> Hi,
> right, having this done transparently for the packagers woul
On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 08:18 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> If we went this route, I'd love to see us attempt to solve this
> generically for all packages if at all possible.
Hi,
right, having this done transparently for the packagers would be ideal.
You only need to decide from which bu
On 04/24/2017 06:47 AM, Milan Crha wrote:
> Hello,
> I've got an idea and I'd like to know an opinion of a wider audience.
>
> Would it make sense to split translations from binary packages to
> a noarch subpackage?
>
> For example libreoffice does that already, it even splits the languages
Hello,
I've got an idea and I'd like to know an opinion of a wider audience.
Would it make sense to split translations from binary packages to
a noarch subpackage?
For example libreoffice does that already, it even splits the languages
by country, which may or may not be applicable to oth
40 matches
Mail list logo
