On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:45:14PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:00:06PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:57:37PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:13:18PM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > Following recent discussions and to reduce the maintenance burden, I'm > > > > > planning to start merging native and mingw packages. Initially, I'll be > > > > > looking at these packages where I maintain both variants: > > > > > > > > I've done the same with all the mingw packages I maintained just > > > > before Fedora 37 branched. So the following native packages now > > > > just contain mingw sub-RPMs: > > > > > > > > libvirt, libvirt-glib, libosinfo, osinfo-db, osinfo-db-tools, gtk-vnc > > > > > > > > I'm so happy to have reduced this maint burden. I see a few new mingw > > > > packages pending in package review and think it'd be nice to first ask > > > > the native maintainer to consider unified package, before we approve > > > > any new separate mingw packages. > > > > > > > > Our Mingw packaging guidelines, however, exclusively describe fully > > > > separated mingw packages. So if I suggest this to a native package > > > > maintainer who is not already familiar with mingw, they would be > > > > right to question whether this is a desirable thing. > > > > > > > > IOW, I think we need to look at getting the mingw packaging docs > > > > updated to promote unified packaging as an officially supported > > > > (and even preferred) option, alongside separate packaging. > > > > > > Sounds great. > > > The Packaging Committee is looking forward to your PR ;) > > > > I don't want to rush into doing that myself in case someone else reading > > along is very enthusiastic to do the work themselves ;-P > > Fast forward 6 months and evidentally no one else was enthusiastic about > updating the MinGW packaging guidelines, so I've taken on that task myself :-) > > I have not yet submitted to the Packaging Committee for approval. The > first draft of updated guidelines I have is here: I've now opened ticket and pull request with the packaging committee https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1259 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1260 so ideally please direct any feedback to the above locations. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
