Re: Should we have rpm package policies tying extension packages to the GNOME versions they'll work with?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux