On 09. 02. 21 17:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 09. 02. 21 1:54, 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:
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.
I have commented this PR but I have not even seen the diff yet. If
I've seen it, I'd ask whether it can be proposed upstream as well.
I'd ask that whether or not it is applied as a sed or patch (or any
other way).
Also note that it is a Pull Request, not a provenpackager mass pushing
changes.
Indeed, one step closer to doing this right :)
To doing what right? If I am doing something wrong, tell me how exactly and what
am I doing. So far you only accused me of doing something I am not doing.
The PR is actually driven by a RHEL 9 bugzilla because the python3-mock package
is marked as unwanted in https://github.com/minimization/content-resolver-input
This continues to be Fedora, not RHEL. I don't think python3-mock
should stay, but it's not justification *for Fedora*.
Yes. And I've told you that my Fedora change has not caused the Pull Request
you've seen.
As I've already said in my first reply to you in January:
Disclaimer: The package is listed as unwanted in ELN (so the RHEL
maintainers might get some internal spam about dropping the
dependency). If they will be interested, I might end up sending a
Fedora PR for such packages.
Please stop accusing me of ill intention.
To my knowledge, I have only stated facts. To be clear, I do not
believe you have ill intention - I believe we disagree, and aren't
communicating well.
I believe we more or less agree about how things should be done.
I believe we don't agree about the reality thou. I don't know why.
You have stated speculations, not facts.
1) "you're going to ProvenPackager in a couple lines of sed to all (affected)
specfiles"
I am not.
2) "You're proposing changing many packages"
I am not.
3) "Turns out this is indeed what they meant." (about (1) and possibly (2))
It is not.
Note that in your first email, the speculations seemed like a misunderstanding
(there was even an "I hope I have misunderstood"). But recently you switched
directly to false accusations. I don't know why you do this, or what have I done
to deserve this treatment, but let me be absolutely clear:
I am not conducting the stuff you accuse me off. I realize that sometimes people
make errors in judgement but I've already told you this once and you keep saying
otherwise. Please stop.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
