Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:06 AM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> I hope a reasonable summary is: >> >> * The core toolchain maintainers don't want guile to be a requirement. >> >> * The guile maintainers don't want guile to be a dependency of the >> core toolchain either. >> >> * With a small adjustment, Makefiles which use guile can be changed >> even if make itelf doesn't support it. > > Yep. > >> >> How about dropping the gnutls -> guile22 BR? >> > > Ask the GnuTLS maintainer. :) I am for dropping the BR, and perhaps it might also make sense to split out the gnutls guile binding from the upstream distribution. That said, the current gnutls build would bring in guile22 BR anyway, indirectly through the autogen/libopts BR (if we bootstrap). We want to replace the tool with something minimal, but haven't had time to move it forward. For the meantime, thanks Tomáš Korbař for stepping up and taking those packages; much appreciated. Regards, -- Daiki Ueno _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
