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.
Thx
Vít
Dne 14. 10. 23 v 18:59 Benson Muite napsal(a):
> Am working on packaging rubygem-licensee as it would probably be a
> useful complement to scancode-toolkit and other similar tools. It
> requires rubygem-faraday >= 2.0 but rubygem-elasticsearch-transport for
> elasticsearch 7 requires rubygem-faraday >~ 1.0 so am packaging it as
> rubygem-faraday2. Hope this will be ok.
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244212
>
> Issue upstream:
>
https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch-ruby/issues/2228
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
>
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraprojec...
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
>
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue