On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 01:40:39PM +0100, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote: > On the other hand though, I barely remember that the compatibility check by > GNOME was re-introduced with GNOME 40 and it may be disabled by default in > the future again. > > Matthew, can you ask the GNOME folks if they have any plans about this? If > the compatibility enforcement was to be disabled again, this "may not" (I > am not 100 % sure about this) be necessary at all (the extensions worked > throughout different GNOME versions before 40 just fine in the most cases, > without any fixing and tweaking)? It seems like the upstream consensus* is that it's better to keep the check, so that someone at least looks and does the update. And honestly, I think that's completely reasonable for extensions that we've chosen to specifically make available in RPM form as part of the Fedora Linux distro. But it'd be nice to have tooling (both upstream and in Fedora) to help extension developers and maintainers. I don't know how much capacity we have for openqa testing of something like this, or what GNOME can offer. * https://discourse.gnome.org/t/plans-for-extension-validation-setting/8107 and https://discourse.gnome.org/t/unable-to-download-updates-from-extentions-gnome-org/8135 -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
