https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2417806

Cristian Le <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[email protected],
                   |                            |[email protected]
              Flags|                            |needinfo?([email protected]
                   |                            |om)
                   |                            |needinfo?([email protected]
                   |                            |om)



--- Comment #41 from Cristian Le <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #40)
> Hi.
> 
> > My intention was to get lesspipe into EPEL (mainly). 
> 
> I think this can only be an EPEL-only package. Only that allows duplicate
> versions of something

My hope is that the `lesspipe` in the `less` package can be extracted out.
There were similar opinions voiced when that was included in `less`, e.g.
@[email protected] mentioned that in the ML thread last time.

I tried to contact @[email protected] internally to get him to respond to the
proposal here, but apart from his disapproval, I did not get any more
information on the why that I could forward you. I see that he responded to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2445448, but I disagree with his
opinion. `less` requiring `lesspipe` to function for the user is *orthogonal*
to how `lesspipe` is being packaged. That is why we have `Requires`. I want to
request from Michal a more detailed explanation on why the `lesspipe` should
not be packaged separately and added in the `Requires` of `less`. As the spec
file indicates this version has much more testing and dependencies that it can
and should run.

---

@Andreas, the Recommends/Suggests that the author provided are also orthogonal
with whether they should be in the spec file. Unless these actively affect the
execution of `lesspipe`, please remove them, otherwise please explain in more
detail how they are linked to `lesspipe`. `libreoffice`, `pandoc` etc. do not
seem relevant.

Also please avoid using the `Requires: /usr/bin/*` and instead depend on the
actual packages that provide them. This would avoid issues when multiple
packages provide the same named binary, changes in the filestructure, etc.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2417806

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202417806%23c41

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new

Reply via email to