Fwd: Re: Roadmap for Mono packages in Fedora ?
hhorak at redhat.com
Tue Apr 14 06:38:38 UTC 2015
On 04/13/2015 12:47 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Actually, rereading this and my reply and Jaroslav's reply, I am not
> sure anymore what do you mean by "shouldn't conflict with base system".
> In my reply, I was thinking in a way that in Fedora, there is lets say
> rubygem-minitest-5.3.1-2.fc21 but in Playground, there can be
> rubygem-minitest-4.7.5-26.fc21. They don't conflict on filesystem, you
> can even install them like:
> # dnf install 'rubygem-minitest < 5'
> Unfortunatelly DNF/YUM handles them as an update, so:
> # dnf install 'rubygem-minitest > 5'
> wipes the old version and in this sense they are "conflicting".
It's tricky in this specific case, but my expectation about playground
in practice is that it doesn't influence the system at all if the
playground repo is just enabled.
So, in case you provide *only older* versions of rubygems in playground,
dnf wouldn't install it unless specifically asked for, so I personally
wouldn't block these packages from playground.
But as Jaroslav mentioned, it may be better to have another place for
such packages (different versions that are in fedora).
> P.S. Actually, as you can play with the rubygem-minitest in Fedora as I
> did on my F21, since there are available both versions I mentioned above ;)
> Dne 10.4.2015 v 17:30 Honza Horak napsal(a):
>> Haven't we agreed two weeks ago that playground packages shouldn't
>> conflict with base system? that means new versions won't be in
>> playground, for those pure copr should be enough.. the playground is
>> supposed to be more for packages that cannot be in fedora due
>> packaging guidelines issues (bundling is great example). At least this
>> what I got from the meeting two weeks ago..
>> On 04/10/2015 02:46 PM, White, Langdon wrote:
>>> Seems like a great oppty for a playground example... think envs and
>>> stacks could follow up on this and help these guys get the existing mono
>>> build they have in to playground while pkg reviews and the like take
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Timotheus Pokorra" <timotheus.pokorra at solidcharity.com
>>> <mailto:timotheus.pokorra at solidcharity.com>>
>>> Date: Apr 10, 2015 2:38 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Roadmap for Mono packages in Fedora ?
>>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>> <devel at lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:devel at lists.fedoraproject.org>>
>>> this is my first post to this list. My name is Timotheus Pokorra, I am
>>> from Germany, and I am also interested to get an uptodate version of
>>> Mono into Fedora and later into CentOS or Epel.
>>> I am developing and deploying OpenPetra, an administration software
>>> under GPL for charities and mission organisations, on CentOS.
>>> I am maintaining Mono packages on OBS for various linux distributions:
>>> Obviously it is quite easy because there are no rules to follow.
>>> I understand that a distribution like Fedora needs packaging rules,
>>> and the rules have a good reason.
>>> > I am not working on this currently. Some one should inform upstream
>>> > that it doesn't build for GCC 5 / C++ 11.
>>> It seems that Mono 4.0 Alpha1 builds fine on Rawhide:
>>> I have added a comment to:
>>> IMHO I think we should focus on getting Mono 4.0 into Fedora
>>> (according to the "First" foundation of Fedora...)
>>> All the best,
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:devel at lists.fedoraproject.org>
>>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>> env-and-stacks mailing list
>> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
More information about the env-and-stacks