On 02/25/2016 08:11 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 18:58 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:03:52 +0100, David Malcolm wrote:
I think I'm only semi-serious here [1], but have you considered
Rust?
[1] e.g. it's not yet in Fedora.
or proven C++11(/14/17)?
(it is
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 18:58 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:03:52 +0100, David Malcolm wrote:
> > I think I'm only semi-serious here [1], but have you considered
> > Rust?
> > [1] e.g. it's not yet in Fedora.
>
> or proven C++11(/14/17)?
> (it is already in Fedora)
C++ is
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:03:52 +0100, David Malcolm wrote:
> I think I'm only semi-serious here [1], but have you considered Rust?
> [1] e.g. it's not yet in Fedora.
or proven C++11(/14/17)?
(it is already in Fedora)
Jan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 12:27 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:03:52PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > "rewrite DNF in a language that can be compiled to efficient
> > > machine
> > >
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:03:52PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
>> "rewrite DNF in a language that can be compiled to efficient machine
>> code, which doesn't require a large runtime support library, and which
>>
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:03:52PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> "rewrite DNF in a language that can be compiled to efficient machine
> code, which doesn't require a large runtime support library, and which
> can interoperate with C".
> I think I'm only semi-serious here [1], but have you
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 05:42 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote:
> > From: "Josh Boyer"
> > Could you please elaborate (perhaps in a separate thread) the full
> > desire and requirements behind rewriting DNF into C? The first
> > link
> > in your email says the initiative is
> From: "Josh Boyer"
> Could you please elaborate (perhaps in a separate thread) the full
> desire and requirements behind rewriting DNF into C? The first link
> in your email says the initiative is started, but it doesn't really
> explain why aside from the libhif
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Honza Šilhan wrote:
> TL;DR
>
> Hawkey project [1] is being obsoleted, use libhif [2] instead. For hawkey
> Python API consumers,
> the transition should be painless.
>
>
> Why we have done that?
>
> Nowadays there are three major consumers
TL;DR
Hawkey project [1] is being obsoleted, use libhif [2] instead. For hawkey
Python API consumers,
the transition should be painless.
Why we have done that?
Nowadays there are three major consumers of hawkey - DNF, PackageKit and
rpm-ostree. The hawkey
API was not in final form yet and
10 matches
Mail list logo