Hi
This is a dependency of deja-dup and seems to have silently obsoleted. Changelog shows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771299 as a pointer but it is unclear to me what am I supposed to do?
Rahul
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 07:23 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This is a dependency of deja-dup and seems to have silently obsoleted. Changelog shows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771299 as a pointer but it is unclear to me what am I supposed to do?
Hi, it was renamed to libgnome-keyring-devel, a note in the gnome-keyring ChangeLog would work, as it was not obvious for me too. Bye, Milan
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:52:54 +0100, MC (Milan) wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 07:23 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This is a dependency of deja-dup and seems to have silently obsoleted. Changelog shows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771299 as a pointer but it is unclear to me what am I supposed to do?
Hi, it was renamed to libgnome-keyring-devel, a note in the gnome-keyring ChangeLog would work, as it was not obvious for me too.
"Renamed"? If so, it would be just another example why our Package Renaming Process is flawed and only adds tiresome bureaucracy for those who follow it.
This new package was introduced as a _conflicting_ package with a normal review request and without following: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process
| https://bugzilla.redhat.com/549709 | New: Review Request: libgnome-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets | | http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=1754659 | Name libgnome-keyring-devel | Conflicts gnome-keyring-devel < 2.29.4
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 12:29 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:52:54 +0100, MC (Milan) wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 07:23 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This is a dependency of deja-dup and seems to have silently obsoleted. Changelog shows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771299 as a pointer but it is unclear to me what am I supposed to do?
Hi, it was renamed to libgnome-keyring-devel, a note in the gnome-keyring ChangeLog would work, as it was not obvious for me too.
"Renamed"? If so, it would be just another example why our Package Renaming Process is flawed and only adds tiresome bureaucracy for those who follow it.
This new package was introduced as a _conflicting_ package with a normal review request and without following: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process
There's no renaming going on here, really. A package was split (gnome-keyring calved libgnome-keyring as a separate module), and as a consequence, gnome-keyring-devel became libgnome-keyring-devel. We could have probably handled the transition better by adding a temporary provides. Too late now.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 12:29 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:52:54 +0100, MC (Milan) wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 07:23 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This is a dependency of deja-dup and seems to have silently obsoleted. Changelog shows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771299 as a pointer but it is unclear to me what am I supposed to do?
Hi, it was renamed to libgnome-keyring-devel, a note in the gnome-keyring ChangeLog would work, as it was not obvious for me too.
"Renamed"? If so, it would be just another example why our Package Renaming Process is flawed and only adds tiresome bureaucracy for those who follow it.
This new package was introduced as a _conflicting_ package with a normal review request and without following: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process
There's no renaming going on here, really. A package was split (gnome-keyring calved libgnome-keyring as a separate module), and as a consequence, gnome-keyring-devel became libgnome-keyring-devel. We could have probably handled the transition better by adding a temporary provides. Too late now.
And / or announcing the change so people are aware of a change.
Peter
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 12:29 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
"Renamed"? If so, it would be just another example why our Package Renaming Process is flawed and only adds tiresome bureaucracy for those who follow it.
Hi, I'm sorry for a confusion, it wasn't meant like real "rename of a package", I did not know internals for the change, for me it was "renamed", but as Matthias explained, it was not a package rename. Bye, Milan
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:27:52 +0100, MC (Milan) wrote:
"Renamed"? If so, it would be just another example why our Package Renaming Process is flawed and only adds tiresome bureaucracy for those who follow it.
Hi, I'm sorry for a confusion, it wasn't meant like real "rename of a package", I did not know internals for the change, for me it was "renamed", but as Matthias explained, it was not a package rename.
No problem, but doesn't change much with regard to my opinion.
_Replacing_ existing packages is also covered by the packaging guidelines,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Exi...
including an explanation how to handle the "Obsoletes" and "Provides". Even the case when to add only "Obsoletes" is commented on.
desktop@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Matthias Clasen -
Michael Schwendt -
Milan Crha -
Peter Robinson -
Rahul Sundaram