I agree that we need some mechanism to keep this working, but Requires might indeed be too strict. Would a BuildRequires >= (the version it wants) or something help? That way the existing versions would still be in the repo, and maintainers wouldn't easily push new versions that aren't supported. Disclaimer, I've not yet finished my first tea. -- Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers ------------------------------------------------ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, November 12th, 2021 at 8:30 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Please no! Unless you want to break Rawhide users. The upstream > > versioning is already quite hostile. > > Vít > > Dne 12. 11. 21 v 14:49 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > > > See this Ask Fedora topic: https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-34-extensions-installed-from-dnf-disabled-after-upgrade-to-fedora-35/18017 > > > > In short, some rpm-packaged GNOME Shell extensions don't work with the GNOME > > > > Shell we are shipping, but this isn't expressed in the dependencies. > > > > I looked at the package which triggered the question, and: > > > > $ rpm -qRp gnome-shell-extension-sound-output-device-chooser-39^1.8c90ed0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm > > gnome-shell-extension-common > > python3 > > rpmlib(CaretInVersions) <= 4.15.0-1 > > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > > rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 > > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > > rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 > > > > > > and > > > > $ rpm2cpio gnome-shell-extension-sound-output-device-chooser-39^1.8c90ed0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm |cpio -i --quiet --to-stdout './usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/*/metadata.json'|jq '."shell-version"' > > [ > > "3.32", > > "3.34", > > "3.36", > > "3.38", > > "40" > > ] > > > > > > Would it make sense to have an automatic dependency generator which requires > > > > gnome-shell to be one of those versions? (Or conflicts with gnome-shell which is > > > > not those versions?) > > packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
