Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora Desktop (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-desktop/)
-   -   missing gnome-keyring-devel (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-desktop/627992-missing-gnome-keyring-devel.html)

Rahul Sundaram 02-02-2012 12:53 AM

missing gnome-keyring-devel
 
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

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Milan Crha 02-02-2012 07:52 AM

missing gnome-keyring-devel
 
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

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Michael Schwendt 02-02-2012 10:29 AM

missing gnome-keyring-devel
 
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
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Matthias Clasen 02-02-2012 12:04 PM

missing gnome-keyring-devel
 
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.

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Peter Robinson 02-02-2012 12:06 PM

missing gnome-keyring-devel
 
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
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Milan Crha 02-03-2012 06:27 AM

missing gnome-keyring-devel
 
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

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop

Michael Schwendt 02-03-2012 06:51 AM

missing gnome-keyring-devel
 
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_Existing _Packages

including an explanation how to handle the "Obsoletes" and "Provides".
Even the case when to add only "Obsoletes" is commented on.
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:58 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.