Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Knurpht-openSUSE
Op dinsdag 9 januari 2018 16:36:03 CET schreef Dmitriy A. Perlow:

> Tue, 09 Jan 2018 17:54:19 +0300 Tomas Chvatal <[hidden email]>
>
> напісаў(ла):
> > Dr. Werner Fink píše v Út 28. 11. 2017 v 10:19 +0100:
> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 03:32:58AM +0000, Dmitriy A. Perlow wrote:
> >> > Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:09:35 +0300 Simon Lees <[hidden email]>
> >> >
> >> > напісаў(ла):
> >> > > On 28/11/17 08:30, Bjoern Voigt wrote:
> >> > > > Dr. Werner Fink wrote:
> >> > > > > there is a drop request against fortune[1]. I'd like to vote
> >> > > > > not
> >> > > > > to drop
> >> > > > > fortune even it it does not use iconv but recode.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Werner
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [1] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/545194
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Could anyone please explain, why the Recode dependency of
> >> > > > Fortune is a
> >> > > > problem?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Should Recode be dropped and why?
> >> > >
> >> > > Recode is being dropped simply because it currently has no
> >> > > maintainer,
> >> > > for a package to be in openSUSE someone has to commit to maintain
> >> > > it.
> >> > > Whoever was doing this in the past doesn't want to anymore, so
> >> > > either
> >> > > someone else steps in to maintain it or it gets dropped.
> >> >
> >> > OK. So if I take the maintainership will nothing be dropped? Is any
> >> > real
> >> > problem about recode?
> >>
> >> Not that I'm aware ... I've compared with recode package from Debian
> >> at
> >> https://packages.debian.org/sid/recode and found similar patches and
> >> also a few more[1].  Only the Url http://recode.progiciels-bpi.ca
> >> seems to
> >> be dead but on github there is a perfect replacement https://github.c
> >> om/pinard/Recode/
> >>
> >> If you like to become a maintainer I can set you as
> >> maintainer/bugowner
> >> of package recode
> >
> > Francois is dead. So even if you have github you need to fork it and
> > develop in there.
> >
> > Anyway, it is 2 months now and neither nobody took over recode nor
> > fortune got updated to not rely on recode. So what is the plan?
> >
> > Also based on OBS data there is not even maintainer of the fortune
> > itself should I again proceed with the drop as people planned only just
> > to complain?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Tom
>
> Could you please point on bugs that have to be fixed? AFAI see both recode
> and fortune packages seem to be fine just now.

All these packages need are maintainers. As long as nobody steps up to do so
..... we simply cannot allow unmaintained packages / software in our distro.
One word: exploits.

--
Gertjan Lettink, a.k.a. Knurpht

openSUSE Board Member
openSUSE Forums Team


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Dmitriy Perlow-2
Tue, 09 Jan 2018 19:02:53 +0300 Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink  
<[hidden email]> напісаў(ла):

> Op dinsdag 9 januari 2018 16:36:03 CET schreef Dmitriy A. Perlow:
>> Tue, 09 Jan 2018 17:54:19 +0300 Tomas Chvatal <[hidden email]>
>>
>> напісаў(ла):
>> > Dr. Werner Fink píše v Út 28. 11. 2017 v 10:19 +0100:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 03:32:58AM +0000, Dmitriy A. Perlow wrote:
>> >> > Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:09:35 +0300 Simon Lees <[hidden email]>
>> >> >
>> >> > напісаў(ла):
>> >> > > On 28/11/17 08:30, Bjoern Voigt wrote:
>> >> > > > Dr. Werner Fink wrote:
>> >> > > > > there is a drop request against fortune[1]. I'd like to vote
>> >> > > > > not
>> >> > > > > to drop
>> >> > > > > fortune even it it does not use iconv but recode.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Werner
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > [1] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/545194
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Could anyone please explain, why the Recode dependency of
>> >> > > > Fortune is a
>> >> > > > problem?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Should Recode be dropped and why?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Recode is being dropped simply because it currently has no
>> >> > > maintainer,
>> >> > > for a package to be in openSUSE someone has to commit to maintain
>> >> > > it.
>> >> > > Whoever was doing this in the past doesn't want to anymore, so
>> >> > > either
>> >> > > someone else steps in to maintain it or it gets dropped.
>> >> >
>> >> > OK. So if I take the maintainership will nothing be dropped? Is any
>> >> > real
>> >> > problem about recode?
>> >>
>> >> Not that I'm aware ... I've compared with recode package from Debian
>> >> at
>> >> https://packages.debian.org/sid/recode and found similar patches and
>> >> also a few more[1].  Only the Url http://recode.progiciels-bpi.ca
>> >> seems to
>> >> be dead but on github there is a perfect replacement https://github.c
>> >> om/pinard/Recode/
>> >>
>> >> If you like to become a maintainer I can set you as
>> >> maintainer/bugowner
>> >> of package recode
>> >
>> > Francois is dead. So even if you have github you need to fork it and
>> > develop in there.
>> >
>> > Anyway, it is 2 months now and neither nobody took over recode nor
>> > fortune got updated to not rely on recode. So what is the plan?
>> >
>> > Also based on OBS data there is not even maintainer of the fortune
>> > itself should I again proceed with the drop as people planned only  
>> just
>> > to complain?
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Tom
>>
>> Could you please point on bugs that have to be fixed? AFAI see both  
>> recode
>> and fortune packages seem to be fine just now.
>
> All these packages need are maintainers. As long as nobody steps up to  
> do so
> ..... we simply cannot allow unmaintained packages / software in our  
> distro.
> One word: exploits.
>

OK. Let me ( https://build.opensuse.org/user/show/DarkSS ) became the  
maintainer.

--
Best regards,
Dmitriy Perlow
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar
On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 20:22 +0300, Dmitriy A. Perlow wrote:

>
> > All these packages need are maintainers. As long as nobody steps up to  
> > do so
> > ..... we simply cannot allow unmaintained packages / software in our  
> > distro.
> > One word: exploits.
> >
>
> OK. Let me ( https://build.opensuse.org/user/show/DarkSS ) became the  
> maintainer.
Make sure to take care of issues like
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422550
as well... upstream had tagged a version 3.7beta2 almost 10 years ago;
so don't expect much upstream activity on reported security issues and
be prepared to fix them (this is just the first one I found googline
for 30 seconds)

Our package has not been touched since 2013 - which is already a bad
sign in itself (it builds is not qualification)

Cheers
Dominique

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Dmitriy Perlow-2
Tue, 09 Jan 2018 20:36:02 +0300 Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar  
<[hidden email]> напісаў(ла):

> On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 20:22 +0300, Dmitriy A. Perlow wrote:
>>
>> > All these packages need are maintainers. As long as nobody steps up to
>> > do so
>> > ..... we simply cannot allow unmaintained packages / software in our
>> > distro.
>> > One word: exploits.
>> >
>>
>> OK. Let me ( https://build.opensuse.org/user/show/DarkSS ) became the
>> maintainer.
>
> Make sure to take care of issues like
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422550
> as well... upstream had tagged a version 3.7beta2 almost 10 years ago;
> so don't expect much upstream activity on reported security issues and
> be prepared to fix them (this is just the first one I found googline
> for 30 seconds)
>
> Our package has not been touched since 2013 - which is already a bad
> sign in itself (it builds is not qualification)
>
> Cheers
> Dominique

I can do monkey patching from Debian and/or Fedora. I can't maintain such  
bugs on my own.

--
Best regards,
Dmitriy Perlow
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Jan Engelhardt-4

On Tuesday 2018-01-09 18:48, Dmitriy A. Perlow wrote:

> Tue, 09 Jan 2018 20:36:02 +0300 Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar
> <[hidden email]> напісаў(ла):
>
>> On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 20:22 +0300, Dmitriy A. Perlow wrote:
>>>
>>>> All these packages need are maintainers. As long as nobody steps up to
>>>> do so
>>>> ..... we simply cannot allow unmaintained packages / software in our
>>>> distro.
>>>> One word: exploits.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. Let me ( https://build.opensuse.org/user/show/DarkSS ) became the
>>> maintainer.
>>
>> Make sure to take care of issues like
>>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422550
>> as well... upstream had tagged a version 3.7beta2 almost 10 years ago;
>> so don't expect much upstream activity on reported security issues and
>> be prepared to fix them (this is just the first one I found googline
>> for 30 seconds)
>>
>> Our package has not been touched since 2013 - which is already a bad
>> sign in itself (it builds is not qualification)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Dominique
>
> I can do monkey patching from Debian and/or Fedora. I can't maintain such bugs
> on my own.

563121  State:new        By:jengelh      When:2018-01-09T18:02:43
        submit:          home:jengelh:branches:Base:System/fortune@3 ->     Base:System

Imagine "shut up and take my money^W patch" image macro here.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Dmitriy Perlow-2
Tue, 09 Jan 2018 21:04:02 +0300 Jan Engelhardt <[hidden email]>  
напісаў(ла):

>
> On Tuesday 2018-01-09 18:48, Dmitriy A. Perlow wrote:
>
>> Tue, 09 Jan 2018 20:36:02 +0300 Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar
>> <[hidden email]> напісаў(ла):
>>
>>> On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 20:22 +0300, Dmitriy A. Perlow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All these packages need are maintainers. As long as nobody steps up  
>>>>> to
>>>>> do so
>>>>> ..... we simply cannot allow unmaintained packages / software in our
>>>>> distro.
>>>>> One word: exploits.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK. Let me ( https://build.opensuse.org/user/show/DarkSS ) became the
>>>> maintainer.
>>>
>>> Make sure to take care of issues like
>>>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422550
>>> as well... upstream had tagged a version 3.7beta2 almost 10 years ago;
>>> so don't expect much upstream activity on reported security issues and
>>> be prepared to fix them (this is just the first one I found googline
>>> for 30 seconds)
>>>
>>> Our package has not been touched since 2013 - which is already a bad
>>> sign in itself (it builds is not qualification)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Dominique
>>
>> I can do monkey patching from Debian and/or Fedora. I can't maintain  
>> such bugs
>> on my own.
>
> 563121  State:new        By:jengelh      When:2018-01-09T18:02:43
>         submit:          home:jengelh:branches:Base:System/fortune@3  
> ->     Base:System
>
> Imagine "shut up and take my money^W patch" image macro here.

So?..

--
Best regards,
Dmitriy Perlow
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Stefan Seyfried
In reply to this post by Knurpht-openSUSE
Am 09.01.2018 um 17:02 schrieb Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink:
> All these packages need are maintainers. As long as nobody steps up to do so
> ..... we simply cannot allow unmaintained packages / software in our distro.
> One word: exploits.

Oh, then you need to drop about one third of all that's in
openSUSE:Factory (84 of the first 200 packages in oS:F have no
maintainer set, I'm waiting for my script to finish, 11800 packages to
go ;-)
--
Stefan Seyfried

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
 public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar
On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 19:44 +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> Am 09.01.2018 um 17:02 schrieb Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink:
> > All these packages need are maintainers. As long as nobody steps up to do so
> > ..... we simply cannot allow unmaintained packages / software in our distro.
> > One word: exploits.
>
> Oh, then you need to drop about one third of all that's in
> openSUSE:Factory (84 of the first 200 packages in oS:F have no
> maintainer set, I'm waiting for my script to finish, 11800 packages to
> go ;-)

NO package in openSUSE:Factory needs a maintainer set: it inherits the
info from the devel project (which your script likely forgot to follow)

The ones that still DO have a maintainer set in oS:F directly are
probably just for legacy reasons

Cheers
Dominique

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Stefan Seyfried
Am 09.01.2018 um 19:54 schrieb Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:

> On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 19:44 +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
>> Am 09.01.2018 um 17:02 schrieb Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink:
>>> All these packages need are maintainers. As long as nobody steps up to do so
>>> ..... we simply cannot allow unmaintained packages / software in our distro.
>>> One word: exploits.
>>
>> Oh, then you need to drop about one third of all that's in
>> openSUSE:Factory (84 of the first 200 packages in oS:F have no
>> maintainer set, I'm waiting for my script to finish, 11800 packages to
>> go ;-)
>
> NO package in openSUSE:Factory needs a maintainer set: it inherits the
> info from the devel project (which your script likely forgot to follow)

No, it does follow (actually osc does):

~> osc maintainer openSUSE:Factory bluez
bugowner of Base:System/bluez :
 seife, vbotka

maintainer of Base:System/bluez :
 seife, vbotka

I just counted the ones like...
~> osc maintainer openSUSE:Factory zot
bugowner of devel:languages:haskell :
 mimi_vx, psimons

maintainer of devel:languages:haskell :
 mimi_vx, psimons, ptrommler, sbahling, spanne, group:factory-maintainers

which is 7057 of 12025 packages in openSUSE:Factory.

Shall I auto-file droprequests for all of them? ;-)

> The ones that still DO have a maintainer set in oS:F directly are
> probably just for legacy reasons

This is the script (ugly, but works):
----
#!/bin/bash
PACKAGES=$(osc ls openSUSE:Factory)
declare -i NUM=0
for P in $PACKAGES; do
        BUG=;MNT=;STATE=;WARN=
        while read LINE; do
                case $LINE in
                        bugowner\ of*$P\ :) STATE=BUG;;
                        maintainer\ of*$P\ :) STATE=MNT;;
                        "") ;;
                        *)      test -z "$STATE" && continue
                                printf -v $STATE "%s" "$LINE" ;;
                esac
        done < <(osc maintainer openSUSE:Factory $P)
        if [ -z "$MNT" -o "x$MNT" = x- ]; then
                WARN="NO MAINTAINER"
        fi
        let NUM++
        printf "%5d %-40s %s (%s)%s\n" $NUM "$P" "$MNT" "$BUG" "$WARN"
done

--
Stefan Seyfried

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
 public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar
NO package in openSUSE:Factory needs a maintainer set: it inherits the

> > info from the devel project (which your script likely forgot to follow)
>
> No, it does follow (actually osc does):
>
> ~> osc maintainer openSUSE:Factory bluez
> bugowner of Base:System/bluez :
>  seife, vbotka
>
> maintainer of Base:System/bluez :
>  seife, vbotka
>
> I just counted the ones like...
> ~> osc maintainer openSUSE:Factory zot
> bugowner of devel:languages:haskell :
>  mimi_vx, psimons
>
> maintainer of devel:languages:haskell :
>  mimi_vx, psimons, ptrommler, sbahling, spanne, group:factory-maintainers
>
> which is 7057 of 12025 packages in openSUSE:Factory.
>
> Shall I auto-file droprequests for all of them? ;-)
If there is no explicit package maintainer assigned, the project
maintainers are the designated maintainers of the packages therein.

you still can't have a package without maintainers 'declared' (does not
mean those are active, alive and kicking, but they are declared)

Cheers
Dominique

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Andreas Schwab-2
On Jan 10 2018, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar <[hidden email]> wrote:

> you still can't have a package without maintainers 'declared' (does not
> mean those are active, alive and kicking, but they are declared)

rubygem-rice doesn't even have a devel project.

Andreas.

--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, [hidden email]
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar
On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 08:42 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jan 10 2018, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > you still can't have a package without maintainers 'declared' (does not
> > mean those are active, alive and kicking, but they are declared)
>
> rubygem-rice doesn't even have a devel project.

Ok, THAT is a fun case of maintainer screwup: somebody forcibly had to
remove the package from the devel project it was in.

This kind of packages are a good candidate to be removed (if they can't
find at least a new devel home)

Cheers
Dominique

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Stefan Seyfried
In reply to this post by Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar
On 10.01.2018 23:00, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
> If there is no explicit package maintainer assigned, the project
> maintainers are the designated maintainers of the packages therein.

Well, then what's the problem of fortune and recode that Knurpht mentioned?
By that definition, they have a maintainer and don't need to be dropped.
--
Stefan Seyfried

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
 public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar
On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 09:25 +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> On 10.01.2018 23:00, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
> > If there is no explicit package maintainer assigned, the project
> > maintainers are the designated maintainers of the packages therein.
>
> Well, then what's the problem of fortune and recode that Knurpht mentioned?
> By that definition, they have a maintainer and don't need to be dropped.

The person that did the work on recode decided not to do it anymore..
and rightly so wants it dropped. Until just recently, only one person
mentioned that he wants to take it over. recode is largely unmaintained
by upstream, but CVEs won't stop for that. So whoever decides to take
on maintainership of that package has to be aware of that.

And keeping recode just for fortune sounds like an overkill (especially
taking into account that Jan created a submission for recode to get rid
of the recode dependency).

Add to that that I also drop packages from TW that have a maintainer
assigned, but where the maintainer fails to actually fix packages for a
long time.

Is there such a strong sentiment for recode? Really?

Cheers
Dominique

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Stefan Seyfried
On 11.01.2018 09:32, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
> Is there such a strong sentiment for recode? Really?

I couldn't care less about recode in particular, but I am sensitive to heavy worded statements from openSUSE Board members.
--
Stefan Seyfried

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
 public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Richard Brown
On 11 January 2018 at 09:52, Stefan Seyfried
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 11.01.2018 09:32, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
>> Is there such a strong sentiment for recode? Really?
>
> I couldn't care less about recode in particular, but I am sensitive to heavy worded statements from openSUSE Board members.
> --
> Stefan Seyfried

What, precisely, is heavily worded about Gertjan's comment?

openSUSE does not distribute unmaintained packages.

As Dominique has clarified, "unmaintained" includes packages without a
declared or inherited maintainer, as well as packages that do have a
declared/inherited maintainer but those maintainers do not respond to
incidents in a timely manner.

My experience over the last 48 hours where a significant amount of my
work has been blocked by the latter, suggests your hunt for packages
without maintainers is misguided.

I think your enthusiasm for this topic would be better spent
motivating those maintainers who are not responsive to serious
problems with their packages, or finding additional maintainers to
help them, rather than wasting a lot of this list readers time
passive-aggressively criticising a Board member who effectively
managed to communicate the above facts of the matter rather
succinctly.

- Richard
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Carlos E. R.-2
In reply to this post by Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar
On 2018-01-11 09:32, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 09:25 +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
>> On 10.01.2018 23:00, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
>>> If there is no explicit package maintainer assigned, the project
>>> maintainers are the designated maintainers of the packages therein.
>>
>> Well, then what's the problem of fortune and recode that Knurpht mentioned?
>> By that definition, they have a maintainer and don't need to be dropped.
>
> The person that did the work on recode decided not to do it anymore..
> and rightly so wants it dropped. Until just recently, only one person
> mentioned that he wants to take it over. recode is largely unmaintained
> by upstream, but CVEs won't stop for that. So whoever decides to take
> on maintainership of that package has to be aware of that.
>
> And keeping recode just for fortune sounds like an overkill (especially
> taking into account that Jan created a submission for recode to get rid
> of the recode dependency).
>
> Add to that that I also drop packages from TW that have a maintainer
> assigned, but where the maintainer fails to actually fix packages for a
> long time.
>
> Is there such a strong sentiment for recode? Really?
Then why don't you consider a fortune replacement?
I suggested "misfortune" at this thread start. It is included in TW.

I have it installed on Leap and it works. The only caveat is that it is
called "misfortune", but the command line is compatible, so a symlink
would solve the caveat. It even supports UTF-8 strings. It is done in
haskell.

The only snag I see is that its documentation doesn't hang from the
documentation directory, a packaging error probably.


Apparently there are other fortune replacements, known as "fortune-mods".

--
Cheers / Saludos,

                Carlos E. R.
                (from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)


signature.asc (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune

Bernhard Voelker
In reply to this post by Stefan Seyfried
On 01/11/2018 09:52 AM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> On 11.01.2018 09:32, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
>> Is there such a strong sentiment for recode? Really?
>
> I couldn't care less about recode in particular, but I am sensitive to heavy worded statements from openSUSE Board members.

http://lists.gnu.org/r/info-gnu/2018-01/msg00017.html

On 01/31/2018 02:11 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
 > Subject: Recode 3.7 released [stable]
 >
 > I am happy to announce a new release of Recode, after almost ten years.
 > ...

It's not unmaintained ;-)

Have a nice day,
Berny
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

12