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:
>>
>> Packaging pynose without hacks (only making it Conflict with nose, no
>> compatibility Provides, Obsoletes or dist-infos).
>>
>> That way, pro-active packagers can switch already.
>
> That makes sense. Review is up [1]. If enough packagers adapt, I may
> not need to go through the changes process.
>
>> And the change proposal can then describe what will be *added* to
>> pynose, rather than describing the approach from scratch.
>
> Since predicting the future is difficult, I'll start on writing up a
> proposal while the package is being introduced, anyway.
>
> [1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274514
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? If I were to provide a testing
framework, I'd very much like to use that testing framework for testing.
<insert picture of a dog chasing its own tail>
Anyway, I'll contact upstream asking them about it. It's the least I can
do. I'll also ask about the documentation link on PyPI, which points to
the RTD page of ye olde 👃.
-- Sandro