Dne 16. 10. 23 v 16:53 Benson Muite napsal(a):
On 10/16/23 14:08, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Additionally, what is the reason for having Faraday 2? It seems octokit
> requires Faraday, but version 1 should be fine. I am not sure about
> Licensee itself, but on the first look, it seems they are having some
> troubles with Faraday 2, but I don't see there any direct dependency ...
>
>
> Vít
>
>
>
> Dne 16. 10. 23 v 12:58 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>> Dear Benson,
>>
>> Yeah, the situation about Faraday is a bit unfortunate. I think that
>> also rubygem-typhoeus depends on Faraday 1:
>>
>>
https://github.com/typhoeus/typhoeus/blob/f5c5751df49089da89fc2683a23df04...
>>
>> Nevertheless, would you be open to rather rename the current package
>> to `rubygem-faraday1` and afterwards bump the `rubygem-faraday` to
>> version 2? I understand it is more work initially, but it is better
>> long term.
That is ok, though there are dependencies for the latest version of
faraday that are not in Fedora. Based on the guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming...
Should I request a review of faraday1?
Would still need to have
dependencies of the latest version of faraday reviewed.
Yes indeed. Without the dependencies, we would not be able to bump the
rubygem-faraday into version 2.