-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/24/2015 08:07 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 11/24/2015 08:06 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Zuzana Svetlikova
> <zsvetlik(a)redhat.com <mailto:zsvetlik@redhat.com>> wrote:
> The problem now is, that we need that module ASAP. I have no
> problem with packaging jison, but it would have to be reviewed
> and built today/tomorrow and it's at least 7 modules.
> I'm happy to do package reviews today, or even help package the
> modules themselves. Just send me a message on IRC (my nick is
> "jsmith"), and I'd be happy to help. I'd rather volunteer to do
> the work and get things done quickly rather than try to bypass
> the process.
> Do you have a list of the 7 modules that need to be
> packaged/reviewed?
For what it's worth, I'm trying to get a statement from FPC on
whether this is generally acceptable to do. But yeah, if someone
wants to fast-track the jison packaging process, that would be the
ideal case, I think.
OK, I spoke with Jason Tibbitts from FPC today. His interpretation is
that we should treat jison pretty much exactly as we do bison: in
other words, it's preferred that we re-generate it (and should
continue to work towards that), but this is NOT a blocker for this
package. (But once we finish the jison packaging, it's in our best
interest to rebuild this package using our copy of jison to regenerate
the code).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlZUsw0ACgkQeiVVYja6o6Ni3wCfRVMrB6iwNnv1ZuCBS1PodYMl
hr8Anj8Jx+rKkTh61o3G6JxlWq7iAxLk
=vAWf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----