Closed #940.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/940#event-4266056164___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
Okay, we got a brand new popt out there for a while now, might as well get this
over with. It's not like anybody is really dependent on popt older than 1.16.
Since there's now a conflict, and the delay is really our fault, handling this
by myself via #1524.
Thanks for the patch!
--
You are re
Yes, the version is not a problem in itself, 1.16 is pretty long in the tooth
already, it's just that I can't bring myself to justify bumping that
requirement for nothing. So I think this goes on hold until there's some more
concrete reason for bumping the requirement, such as using a new API fr
@pmatilai I think it's fine for us to raise to popt-1.16. The only
distributions currently supported that have versions older than that are EL6
and EL7. Even SLE 12 has popt-1.16. On the Debian/Ubuntu side, they've had it
for quite a long time, going back to Ubuntu 12.04.
--
You are receiving
IIRC on rpm5.org last time I saw popt 0.17 which had way more freshen
translations (and more translations) and all .po files converted to UTF-8 + few
minor code cleanups.
Looks like rpm5.org domain disappeared :/
If that tree still is somewhere it would be good to merge all those changes.
I shoul
To elaborate a bit, the reason this bumps popt version dependency to 1.16 is
that older versions did not *have* the pkgconfig file, and so cannot satisfy
the dependency. The rpm.pc was added long before popt added its own, which is
the main reason it's not there now.
Expressing that dependency
This effectively sets our popt version requirement to >= 1.16 from the current
>= 1.13.
It's not necessarily a bad thing (1.16 wasn't exactly released yesterday), but
such a thing needs to be a conscious decision and documented appropriately in
the commit message and INSTALL.
--
You are receiv
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/940#pullrequestreview-317988031___
Rpm
@kloczek Nah, @pmatilai will take care of it.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/940#issuecomment-554672136___
Rpm-m
Fixed https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/939
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/940
-- Commit Summary --
* Add popt to Requires.
-- File Changes --
M rpm.pc.in (1)
-- Patch Links --
ht
This is PR against master but probably the same should be done for other active
branches.
Should I create separated PRs?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/940
11 matches
Mail list logo
