Just FTR, this is the upstream ticket relevant to this discussion: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/issues/3808 Vít Dne 12. 11. 21 v 15:30 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
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-35/18017In short, some rpm-packaged GNOME Shell extensions don't work with the GNOMEShell 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.rpmgnome-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?)
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
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
