Golang-github-cznic-golex go-sig, jchaloup, orphan 10 weeks ago Golang-github-cznic-fileutil go-sig, jchaloup, orphan 10 weeks ago Golang-github-cznic-b go-sig, jchaloup, orphan 10 weeks ago Golang-github-ccding-go-stun go-sig, jchaloup, orphan 10 weeks ago Golang-github-calmh-luhn go-sig, jchaloup, orphan 10 weeks ago Golang-github- go-sig, orphan 10 weeks ago Golang-github- go-sig, jchaloup, orphan 10 weeks ago Package will be retired when the affected package gets retired.Īutotrash frafra, orphan, robyduck 1 weeks ago Retire your depending package to avoid broken dependencies, otherwise your Packages or a package that depends on one. Note: If you received this mail directly you (co)maintain one of the affected I plan to retire packages that were already announced 3 times next Monday. That the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when theyĪre orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. More specific changelog (web documentation): Include possible distprefix in “–define dist” for Forge-based packages Enable shell completion for module scratch builds Ignore any specified profile when finding the Flatpak build target Add “retire” command supporting both packages and modules Add the ability to configure multiple regex expressions Show module build links in output from command module-build Ignore specific files in a cloned repository Permit setting arbitrary rpm macros during build Remove the ability to parse a module’s branch Allow passing arguments to “mbs-manager build_module_locally” Numerous features and improvements (as well as bugfixes) includes: Try other waiting distributions in Bodhi.
Qutim 100 mg install#
I'm not against apt-rpm in the base install for exampleĪ new version rpkg-1.58 and fedpkg-1.37 is released.Ĭurrently, Fedora 30 packages are in the stable repository, feel free to Than either sbuild or pdebuild that I barely have pain points left when it And of course I would be happy to help with reviewsĪnd thanks again to the mock developers, its design is so much better The packaging does nothingįancy, there are quirks here and there but overall it was rather easy Help for the reviews and co-maintainership. I hope I CC'd everyone that should get this heads up, and hope to find Helpful for non-savvy users that this JustWorks(tm), but apt-rpm isĭead upstream and it shouldn't be advertised as apt. They should run "apt-get install foo" somewhere on the web it's The current apt package should be renamed to apt-rpm, I will look up Two of those packages should be runtime dependencies of debhelper. Something goes wrong outside of the C realm that would be helpful. The mailing list address) but bugzilla replied kindly:Īpt is a mix of C, Perl and C++ code, so I would be reassured if IĬould have a C++ co-maintainer too. I tried to CC perl-sig as per the guidelines (also tried with Three of those packages are heavy on Perl code, and I'm not a Perl In order to successfully build debs on Fedora I needed 4 packages that Having to deal with needless extra hoops. It finally got enough on my nerves to locally build the things I needed andĪfter a month I have already amortized my efforts with the time I save not Until recently my workflow was quite painful because I needed extra stepsīetween git checkout and git push that involves a VM, because what we I'm calling this initiative fedpkg: Fedora Embraces DPKG.Ī bit of background here: I build both RPMs and DEBs for $DAYJOB and I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaksĮverything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
Qutim 100 mg license#
Under that license may be included in Fedora (including EPEL and COPRs). We have updated our "Bad License" list to include SSPLv1. It is also worth nothing that while there is a draft for a "v2" of the SSPL:ī) It is not in use anywhere at this time (as far as we know).Ĭ) The intent of the v2 draft text is not changed from the v1 license To consider the SSPL to be "Free" or "Open Source"Ĭauses that shadow to be cast across all other licenses in the FOSSĮcosystem, even though none of them carry that risk.
Qutim 100 mg software#
It is the belief of Fedora that the SSPL is intentionally crafted to beĪggressively discriminatory towards a specific class of users.Īdditionally, it seems clear that the intent of the license author is toĬause Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt towards commercial users of software V1 (SSPL) is not a Free Software License. After review, Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public License
0 kommentar(er)
