From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Why does git-core 0.99.7 require python 2.4? Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:33:10 -0700 Message-ID: <432F2E96.1040307@zytor.com> References: <432F0C66.7060402@zytor.com> <20050919200222.GA11322@c165.ib.student.liu.se> <7vslw0lqvd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <432F26E9.9090707@zytor.com> <7v7jdclpme.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Fredrik Kuivinen , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 19 23:35:19 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EHTGR-0003rW-GV for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:33:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932708AbVISVdY (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:33:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932709AbVISVdY (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:33:24 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([209.128.68.124]:64990 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932708AbVISVdX (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:33:23 -0400 Received: from [10.4.1.13] (yardgnome.orionmulti.com [209.128.68.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j8JLXFNm010022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:33:15 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050720) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7v7jdclpme.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.87, clamav-milter version 0.87 on localhost X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > > >>My suggestion would be to fork off the recursive merge into a separate >>binary package which can have the python >= 2.4 requirement (unless >>Fredrik just fixes it.) > > > It sounds like the right thing to do, not that I know much about > how RPM world deals with situations like this (aside from what I > learnt from the list). If we go this route probably we should > the same for gitk and git-send-email as well? Yes, that probably would make sense, at least for gitk. I'll try to work on the spec file. It's a bit messier than I'd like, because a whole bunch of wildcard patterns don't work anymore. -hpa