On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:18:10 -0400
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Rahul Sundaram (metherid(a)gmail.com) said:
> On 10/10/2011 08:52 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
>
> > So there doesn't need to be more co-maintainers (which is welcomed
> > anyway), but it would help to get such updates pushed to stable
> > directly like it was without the forced period in updates-testing
> > or a heads up before doing such an update.
>
> I think the heads up should be automated via the build system.
If the required updates are due to version checks in the extensions,
it might be possible to have RPM have a dependency generator that
checks these and outputs the appropriate Requires/Conflicts lines,
such that this could be easily caught by AutoQA.
Generally speaking, could be possible (didn't look at other extensions).
I'll try to script somthing for the requires generation
like /usr/lib/rpm/pythondeps.sh. But it won't be possible to easily
generalize requires, it would be better to have Conflicts:
<!-- Firefox -->
<em:targetApplication>
<Description>
<em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
<em:minVersion>3.0</em:minVersion>
<em:maxVersion>10.0a1</em:maxVersion>
</Description>
</em:targetApplication>
There isn't only firefox in that file, there are many browsers that
aren't available in fedora, so R: Flock >= 0.4 and R: Flock <= 2.0.*
would be never fulfilled --> Choosing to conflict with all other
versions.
Would that be ok/sane?
-Tom