----- Original Message ----- > From: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Miro Hrončok" <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:58:36 AM > Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: Deprecate python-mock (Self-Contained change proposal) > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 07:54:00PM -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On 08. 02. 21 20:38, Robbie Harwood wrote: > > >> Robbie Harwood <rharwood@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> > > >>> Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >>> > > >>>> A simple `sed` can be applied in `%prep` as a temporary (or even > > >>>> permanent) downstream solution. > > >>>> > > >>>> In most cases, performing the following replacement should be enough: > > >>>> > > >>>> s/^(\s*)import mock/\1from unittest import mock/ > > >>>> s/^(\s*)from mock import /\1from unittest.mock import / > > >>> > > >>> a couple lines of sed to all (affected) specfiles. I hope I have > > >>> misunderstood, because that has no mechanism to get the changes back > > >>> into upstreams. Could you clarify what you intend to do? > > >> > > >> Turns out this is indeed what they meant. I would like to reiterate > > >> my concern that this has no mechanism to get the changes back into > > >> upstreams: it's just Fedora deviating further from the rest of the > > >> world, not leading the charge. > > > > > > Not sure who you mean by "them" in this case, > > > > Change authors. So, you. > > > > > but doing this downstream only was never my intention. I am the change > > > owner. > > > > You have already replied to one of the PRs > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-requests-gssapi/pull-request/1 > > to comment that it couldn't be merged. It follows the downstream-only > > sed approach, you'll note. > > So... let me get this straight: the Change Owners found outdated code in your > package, created a page to describe the issue in detail, and opened a pull > request > to tell you exactly how you can update the code. And now you are pissed that > they didn't provide the two line diff in the the format that you like. > That's really a way to show appreciation of other people helping with your > packages. > > Zbyszek > _______________________________________________ > 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 > Well it seems so. I mean I would get it to an extend if this wasn't a *PR*. But anyway yes a two-line diff apparently should be a patch and not a sed. Also according to the PR comments I'm "unwilling" to do that upstream. I don't see how that behavior helps the ecosystem. -- Regards, Charalampos Stratakis Software Engineer Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat _______________________________________________ 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
