On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:21 PM Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczko.tomasz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 13:28, Jindrich Novy <jnovy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Tomasz,> On top of removing perl-generators which add for mc proper perl modules dependencies for
> patchfsCan you please elaborate on the above? patchfs works for me despite missing perl-generators? This is not raised by me but the following request from an user:-----
Hi Jindrich,
I did a minimal install of CentOS 8 with mc and saw that it pulls in perl due to (I guess) BuildRequires: perl-generators in the spec file. I looked at mc upstream and they do not list perl as a requirement:
https://github.com/MidnightCommander/mc/blob/master/doc/INSTALL
Did I miss something or is perl no more needed? I'd be happy to file a BZ, just let me know.Without installed perl(File::Temp) perl module when someone will enter into patch to use patchfs it will be be not working.If you want to fix that you should try to rewrite patchfs perl backend script in POSIX sh.I'm almost sure that using perl in patchfs or zipfs is obverkill.As well rpmfs is written is perl (many years ago when I've rewrote rpmfs scrip it was using only POSIX sh with rpm as only external command .. however in meantime someone made here some "progress").
Thanks, the BR: perl-generators is now added back.
Next time instead using you proven packager privileges at least please try to contact someone who actively is maintaining some package.
Note I'm still official fedora maintainer of mc: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mc
BTW mc.Also I do not understand why FC31 release comity ignored my objection to push mc 4.8.23 to fc31 since it core dumps sometimes few times per hour of active use.
You commented on the F29 update (not F31) here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e3e2bc7747 and failed to reply to my comment.
From end user point of view difference between mc 4.8.22 and 4.8.23 are negligible.I have opened ticket with that issue http://midnight-commander.org/ticket/4023
Thanks.
Also please reply to my questions you deleted from previous email - we need to be sure what to do WRT aspell in mc and whether it makes sense:
> now we have pollution of the mc static
dependencies by add aspell-en.
> mc does not need aspell-en but aspell does because aspell to work properly needs at least
> some dictionary.
Adding Requires of aspell-en fixes this:
which
is very annoying and lot of users are complaining about it. Every time
you edit a file you need to confirm the "No word list can be found for
language en."
For
aspell vs aspell-en you suggest mc be dependent on aspell directly? Is
there any bug requesting Requires: aspell-en from aspell? Other option
is just to disable spellchecking as a whole. I'm in doubt anybody is
using it.
For
me it is important we get rid of annoying UX issues encountered every
time when user edits a file. I'm happy to discuss any possible/more
appropriate ways to address this instead of this workaround.
Tomasz, regarding to patches you added downstream:
mc-default_setup.patch - Can you propose this upstream?
mc-python3.patch - Can you propose this upstream?
mc-rpm.patch - Can you propose this upstream?
mc-rpm.patch - Can you propose this upstream?
mc-spec.syntax.patch - Can you propose this upstream?
Please
do not pollute downstream with these patches - better way is to do a PR
upstream - once merged we can do a release candidate in rawhide with
the upstream checked-out tarball. Extensive patching downstream without
any upstream involvement requires lots of maintenance/forwardporting.
Thanks,
Jindrich
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
