![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/77cb4da5f72bc176182dcc33f03a18f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 08/07/2022 14.00, Dan Čermák wrote:
Eric Schirra <ecsos@opensuse.org> writes:
Am Mittwoch, 6. Juli 2022, 17:58:58 CEST schrieb Stefan Seyfried:
Hi Eric, On 06.07.22 13:25, Eric Schirra wrote:
I also don't know why it's so much easier than creating an RPM package. I build quite a few packages for Leap and Tumbleweed. I don't have any problems with that and I don't think it will get any better.
Just for the record: if I remember correctly, you recently told a story of a package you did update in its develproject (calibre? not sure) which then no longer built for Leap.
And what does that have to do with this? Why this was not built was a spelling mistake, if you will. If you mean that the latest version of calibre can no longer be built for Leap, then it is, as I already wrote in other mails, due to the ancient and partly dead program versions. Especially calibre among other things a lot of missing python packages. Python 3.6 is dead!
So these seem to contradict themselves a bit ;-)
No. You could, if you wanted to and were not totally attached to the SLES, solve it differently.
Which is by the way, what we are trying to achieve with ALP…
Does this mean that the flatpack of calibre would contain inside the proper version of python? Would this not mean that we would need powerful computers with huge hard disks, to have this pentaplication of libraries, and a corresponding large CPU to cope with all this? It would be the end of using Linux on old computers. If this is so, I have to find another distro. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from openSUSE 15.3 (Legolas))