On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:53:52AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
>
> On 11. 04. 24 22:41, Michel Lind wrote:
> > The different Django stacks are in the process of being updated so they
> > can be swapped without affecting dependents, by providing and
> > conflicting with the virtual `python-django
On 11. 04. 24 22:41, Michel Lind wrote:
The different Django stacks are in the process of being updated so they
can be swapped without affecting dependents, by providing and
conflicting with the virtual `python-django-impl`; not only will this
allow us to swap one Django LTS for another in EPEL
Hi all,
With the recent EOL of the Django 3.2 LTS series[^1], and Django being a
key component of our mailing list infra for both Fedora and CentOS, I
would like to propose the following plan to maintain Django in both
Fedora and EPEL:
- Fedora: `python-django` maintained as currently, not tracki
On 11-04-2024 15:30, Sandro wrote:
I see "# Package doesn't provide any tests" in the %check section.
That certainly feels a bit dodgy. This successor of a test framework
decided to ditch all of the tests it used to have? That is certainly a
red flag.
More like a chicken and egg story, maybe?
On 11-04-2024 15:49, Ben Beasley wrote:
For a proposed nose successor, pynose doesn’t seem to have gained much
community traction so far: it has seven stars on GitHub[1] (compared to
770 for nose2, which itself was never that widely adopted and has fewer
than ten dependent packages in Fedora);
For a proposed nose successor, pynose doesn’t seem to have gained much
community traction so far: it has seven stars on GitHub[1] (compared to
770 for nose2, which itself was never that widely adopted and has fewer
than ten dependent packages in Fedora); and the imperfect but fairly
useful reve
On 11-04-2024 15:17, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 04. 24 15:05, Sandro wrote:
On 11-04-2024 13:54, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 04. 24 11:55, Sandro wrote:
While I ponder those thoughts some more, moving forward in either
direction, the next step would be writing a change proposal?
I'd start by:
On 11. 04. 24 15:05, Sandro wrote:
On 11-04-2024 13:54, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 04. 24 11:55, Sandro wrote:
While I ponder those thoughts some more, moving forward in either direction,
the next step would be writing a change proposal?
I'd start by:
Packaging pynose without hacks (only mak
On 11-04-2024 13:54, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 04. 24 11:55, Sandro wrote:
While I ponder those thoughts some more, moving forward in either
direction, the next step would be writing a change proposal?
I'd start by:
Packaging pynose without hacks (only making it Conflict with nose, no
compa
On 11. 04. 24 11:55, Sandro wrote:
While I ponder those thoughts some more, moving forward in either direction,
the next step would be writing a change proposal?
I'd start by:
Packaging pynose without hacks (only making it Conflict with nose, no
compatibility Provides, Obsoletes or dist-infos
On 10-04-2024 17:50, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 10. 04. 24 17:30, Sandro wrote:
On 10-04-2024 12:04, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 04. 24 19:30, Sandro wrote:
Therefore, I'm thinking of introducing pynose as a drop in
replacement of deprecated nose. Pynose uses the same namespace as
nose, but provid
11 matches
Mail list logo
