<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Karl Kleinpaste <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:karl@kleinpaste.org" target="_blank">karl@kleinpaste.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="">
<div>On 06/11/2014 09:59 AM, Matěj Cepl
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>That is not The Fedora Way™ … I have been always proud, that in
Fedora it is useless to have PPAs, because we have one shared
PPA on which everybody can work — the Fedora itself.
Couldn’t we just make single-spec package (with some %ifs if
necessary) building on supported Fedoras (F19, F20, Rawhide, at
the moment) and the last EPEL (for a moment, I would support
EPEL-6 as well, but after half-a-year or so I would stick with
just EPEL-7)?
Would anybody mind if I just build the latest sword and xiphos
for these repos?</pre>
</blockquote></div>
As Greg and I have chatted in IRC, the perspective he's offered is
that building for older releases is for bug and security
vulnerabilities. I disagree with this, but if that's Policy, I
don't have a lot of say. Obviously there are bug fixes in each
release, and I would think that justifies building for all
currently-supported releases. That's why I built Sword and Xiphos
packages last evening for F19, which I've now been told work fine on
F20, too.<br>
<br>
I of course won't mind if current versions get built for the
official repos.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm just going off of what <a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Philosophy">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Philosophy</a> this has to say. For release n-1 (Fedora 19) the guidelines specifically state:</div>
<div><br></div><ul style="margin:0.3em 0px 0px 1.5em;padding:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:18.239999771118164px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif"><li style="margin:0px 0px 0.1em;padding:0px">Push only major bug fixes and security fixes to release(n-1).</li>
</ul><div><font color="#000000" face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:18.239999771118164px"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:18.239999771118164px">So I think this definitely rules out making "official" packages for Fedora 19. And the language there seems to indicate to me that building for Fedora 20 would not be encouraged mainly because Xiphos 3.2 requires sword 1.7.3 and the sword engine is not a "leaf node" as BibleTime would also depend on it. Now, these rules are not tightly enforced for things like the Sword and Xiphos packages, but unless there is a consensus that there are major bugs fixed from Sword 1.7.2 to 1.7.3 and/or that there are major bugs in Xiphos 3.1.6 that are fixed in 3.2 I would rather not package for the current release. If there are some major show-stopping bugs fixed then I'll gladly merge down the new package to Fedora 20 and kick off the Bodhi updates.</span></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:18.239999771118164px"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:18.239999771118164px">--Greg</span></font></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">So, should I close it as CANTFIX (or WONTFIX)?
</blockquote></div>
I would say "already fixed, by abandoning an old toolkit" but you
can pick whatever notation is appropriate.
<div class=""><blockquote type="cite">
<pre>So needinfo asking what’s the relevance of KDE? Does the GUI
uses something weird like “Gnome theme making Gnome apps looking
like KDE ones” (what’s its name)? It used to lead to many
crashes, but I don’t know if such animal still exists in
KDE4/Gnome3 world.
</pre>
</blockquote></div>
I'm unaware of any such animal at all. From my perspective, any
interaction with KDE is simply wrong. So yes, need to understand
how libproxy comes into the picture in the first place, and why it
wants to interact with KDE. Xiphos has no proxy support at all --
why is anything down there asking for <i>either</i> libproxy <i>or
</i>KDE?<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
sword-devel mailing list: <a href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>