On 11/26/2016 01:07 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> FWIW, your invitation expired or is otherwise unusable (but at least
> I can read your code, todo++).
Yeah, I pressed the button on github and only then figured out that it's
just for allowing you to write to my repository, and then I withdrew the
invite. We can publish and share all work via your rpm5 repos.
> You have chosen to fork libhif from
> rather than a fork (of a fork) from
> That forces our coordination to be pulled from the only common
> root at
> which almost certainly precludes any participation from me and rpm5.org
> for various reasons.
libhif has been in active development lately (51 commits ahead of your
repo), and so I wanted to use their latest code as a starting point.
Also your repo has a single commit that seems to be incomplete and
squashing together several unrelated fixes (without documenting them)
. Can I move that commit to a 'jeff' branch, so the master branch
contains only proper commits and is updated from upstream regularly?
> Note that there are several other efforts attempting a dnf->Ö->rpm5 tool
> chain that I
> am aware of. Which is why I attempted RPM5 repositories to permit
> collaboration, and
> am perfectly willing to give write access to anyone who wishes.
> I am also perfectly willing to let someone other than rpm5.org
> <http://rpm5.org> administrate the mess if that
> is what is desired. I do encourage all of you to collaborate early and
> work forward from
> working tools. Thereís a fair amount of subtle work that will be needed
> What is your intent: collaboration with rpm5.org <http://rpm5.org> or
> collaboration with rpm-software-management?
My idea is that once we get something working in rpm5 repositories and
have a reasonable set of commits, I can try to approach rpm4 people with
those patches (you don't have to be involved in that). If they agree to
take them, great, if not, we'll figure out some way to maintain them
> Um rpm5.org <http://rpm5.org> and rpm.org <http://rpm.org> have
> different APIís, and are most definitely different
> implementations these days. Its not just include files, and more than
> libhif is going to
> be needed to build a working dnf->Ö->rpm5 tool chain.
Yep, but let's start with libhif and its build errors.
Received on Mon Nov 28 15:28:17 2016