On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:18:10 -0400
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram (metherid@xxxxxxxxx) said:
> > On 10/10/2011 08:52 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
> >
> > > So there doesn't need to be more co-maintainers (which is welcomed
> > > anyway), but it would help to get such updates pushed to stable
> > > directly like it was without the forced period in updates-testing
> > > or a heads up before doing such an update.
> >
> > I think the heads up should be automated via the build system.
>
> If the required updates are due to version checks in the extensions,
> it might be possible to have RPM have a dependency generator that
> checks these and outputs the appropriate Requires/Conflicts lines,
> such that this could be easily caught by AutoQA.
Generally speaking, could be possible (didn't look at other extensions).
I'll try to script somthing for the requires generation
like /usr/lib/rpm/pythondeps.sh. But it won't be possible to easily
generalize requires, it would be better to have Conflicts:
<!-- Firefox -->
<em:targetApplication>
<Description>
<em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
<em:minVersion>3.0</em:minVersion>
<em:maxVersion>10.0a1</em:maxVersion>
</Description>
</em:targetApplication>
There isn't only firefox in that file, there are many browsers that
aren't available in fedora, so R: Flock >= 0.4 and R: Flock <= 2.0.*
would be never fulfilled --> Choosing to conflict with all other
versions.
Would that be ok/sane?
-Tom
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
