How do I get the source package _name_ from an RPM?
by Matthew Miller
rpm -qa --qf '%{sourcerpm}\n'
gives me a list of source RPM names, but it's in filename format. I don't
want to have to try to parse that to figure out the actual source package
base name (i.e. the dist-git name). Is there something I'm missing? Probably
there is. :)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
7 months, 1 week
Should we have rpm package policies tying extension packages to the GNOME versions they'll work with?
by Matthew Miller
See this Ask Fedora topic: https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-34-extensions-installed-from-dnf-d...
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?)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
7 months, 1 week
Re: Should we have rpm package policies tying extension packages to the GNOME versions they'll work with?
by Matthew Miller
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 01:40:39PM +0100, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
> On the other hand though, I barely remember that the compatibility check by
> GNOME was re-introduced with GNOME 40 and it may be disabled by default in
> the future again.
>
> Matthew, can you ask the GNOME folks if they have any plans about this? If
> the compatibility enforcement was to be disabled again, this "may not" (I
> am not 100 % sure about this) be necessary at all (the extensions worked
> throughout different GNOME versions before 40 just fine in the most cases,
> without any fixing and tweaking)?
It seems like the upstream consensus* is that it's better to keep the check,
so that someone at least looks and does the update. And honestly, I think
that's completely reasonable for extensions that we've chosen to
specifically make available in RPM form as part of the Fedora Linux distro.
But it'd be nice to have tooling (both upstream and in Fedora) to help
extension developers and maintainers. I don't know how much capacity we have
for openqa testing of something like this, or what GNOME can offer.
* https://discourse.gnome.org/t/plans-for-extension-validation-setting/8107
and https://discourse.gnome.org/t/unable-to-download-updates-from-extentions-...
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
7 months, 1 week
Re: Should we have rpm package policies tying extension packages to the GNOME versions they'll work with?
by Matthew Miller
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 01:40:39PM +0100, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
> Matthew, can you ask the GNOME folks if they have any plans about this? If
> the compatibility enforcement was to be disabled again, this "may not" (I
> am not 100 % sure about this) be necessary at all (the extensions worked
> throughout different GNOME versions before 40 just fine in the most cases,
> without any fixing and tweaking)?
Sure, or some of the folks on the desktop list here who might be already in
the know could chime in. :)
I kind of think it'd be useful to at least _alert_ maintainers and ask them
to test and update (either to a new version, or just patch the compat list
if the current one works), no matter what that setting ends up as.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
7 months, 2 weeks
