On 28 April 2017 at 00:07, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27 April 2017 at 02:32, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> At this moment, this is NOT true for Fedora and derivatives. Instead, >> the remediation step here is "sudo pip uninstall X && sudo dnf >> reinstall <something>" where you have to: >> >> 1. Figure out what "<something>" needs to be >> 2. Hope that whatever you broke didn't affect your ability to run >> "sudo dnf reinstall" > > I have a question. If there is a working version of what we want, is > there a reason we should not adopt that version with appropriate > hacks? Only the fact that even what Debian have is still pretty flawed, so it made sense to try and see if we could think of a potentially better alternative. That said, the gist of my reply to the original Python SIG thread was that I think we've reached the end of that process, and it's time to just adopt an approach that's mostly consistent with Debian's approach (plus any necessary adjustments to avoid breaking the world for RPM builds) > Would this give any future PEP some groundswell of approval? I think so - once the Debian/Ubuntu and Fedora/RHEL/CentOS ecosystems share a common way of doing things at the distro level, it's often easier to make the case for changes upstream as "general Linux integration improvements", which sidesteps arguments against maintaining "distro-specific workarounds" in upstream tools. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@xxxxxxxxx | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
