https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2417806
--- Comment #48 from Peter Oliver <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Cristian Le from comment #41) > 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 made that same argument over at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/less/pull-request/15#comment-310680 along with the following additional points, but evidently mhlavink did not find it compelling. > less and lesspipe are independent projects with different developers, > licences, bug trackers, release cycles, version numbers, etc. By > putting them into the same source package, we lose a lot: the version > number of lesspipe is obscured, release monitoring is broken, we can't > release updates independently, etc. Meanwhile, I don't think we gain > anything (other than bypassing the package review process). > 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. Just FYI, different packagers take different views on this, since using the path rather than package name projects you against files moving between packages, and because naming the executable is more explicit about what functionality is being required. Ultimately, I’m relaxed about which style we end up with. (In reply to Cristian Le from comment #43) > that is a decision for Fedora to make via ChangeProposals, I wonder if switching our traditional lesspipe.sh for the one from lesspipe.org deserved a change proposal itself. I imagine that some people will be surprised by it when they upgrade to Fedora 44. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. 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%23c48 -- _______________________________________________ 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
