3:32 p.m.
Hi, I was going to submit gnome-screensaver to Fedora Extras, and while
checking the spec file[1] for submission, I found the following
problems:
Problem #1 - Since gnome-screensaver is a gnome replacement for
xscreensaver, I decided to add "Provide: xscreensaver" but then to the
spec file. The problem is that upgrading xscreensaver will remove
gnome-screensaver (xscreensaver obsoletes itself).
Problem #2 - gnome-screensaver can use xscreensaver hacks if
xscreensaver-extras or xscreensaver-gl-extras are installed, but they
depend on xscreensaver-base, which introduces problem #1.
I think the user should be able to install:
gnome-screensaver
xscreensaver
xscreensaver-extras
or
gnome-screensaver
xscreensaver-extras
Any suggestions?
[1] Related files available at:
http://ece.uprm.edu/~veguilla/fedora/gnome-screensaver/
--
Ricardo Veguilla Gonzalez <veguilla(a)gmail.com>
3:46 p.m.
On 9/9/05, Ricardo Veguilla Gonzalez <veguilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I was going to submit gnome-screensaver to Fedora Extras, and while
checking the spec file[1] for submission, I found the following
problems:
Problem #1 - Since gnome-screensaver is a gnome replacement for
xscreensaver, I decided to add "Provide: xscreensaver" but then to the
spec file. The problem is that upgrading xscreensaver will remove
gnome-screensaver (xscreensaver obsoletes itself).
Problem #2 - gnome-screensaver can use xscreensaver hacks if
xscreensaver-extras or xscreensaver-gl-extras are installed, but they
depend on xscreensaver-base, which introduces problem #1.
why do you need to provide "xscreensaver"? Can you not provide
"xscreensaver-base" to solve the problem you want to solve?
-jef
4:17 p.m.
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 16:46 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 9/9/05, Ricardo Veguilla Gonzalez <veguilla(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi, I was going to submit gnome-screensaver to Fedora Extras, and while
> checking the spec file[1] for submission, I found the following
> problems:
>
> Problem #1 - Since gnome-screensaver is a gnome replacement for
> xscreensaver, I decided to add "Provide: xscreensaver" but then to the
> spec file. The problem is that upgrading xscreensaver will remove
> gnome-screensaver (xscreensaver obsoletes itself).
>
> Problem #2 - gnome-screensaver can use xscreensaver hacks if
> xscreensaver-extras or xscreensaver-gl-extras are installed, but they
> depend on xscreensaver-base, which introduces problem #1.
why do you need to provide "xscreensaver"? Can you not provide
"xscreensaver-base" to solve the problem you want to solve?
Because control-center requires xscreensaver.
If I also provide xscreensaver-base, it will allow gnome-screensaver +
xscreensaver-extras, but upgrading xscreensaver would still remove
gnome-screensaver if both are installed. I could simply make
gnome-screensaver provide and obsolete both "xscreensaver" and
"xscreensaver-base", but I was trying to find a way to allow both of
them installed at the same time.
--
Ricardo Veguilla González <veguilla(a)gmail.com>
4:53 p.m.
On 9/9/05, Ricardo Veguilla González <veguilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Because control-center requires xscreensaver.
perhaps control-center needs to be requiring xscreensaver-base instead now.
I think control-center still requiring xscreensaver is an oversight.
If I also provide xscreensaver-base,
Here's what I'm getting at... what you want to do cannot involve
providing "xscreensaver"
as long as xscreensaver-base is obsoleting "xscreensaver"
I can't see a good reason for control-center to still be requiring
xscreensaver over xscreensaver-base. If you want the parallel install
of both to work you avoid providing "xscreensaver" and you provide
"xscreensaver-base" instead. If you want people to be able to remove
xscreensaver and use gnome-screensaver exclusively, I think you'll
have to convince the control-center packager to require
xscreensaver-base instead of xscreensaver... assume there are no
actual file conflicts and the only problem really is the obsoleting
action.
how xscreensaver-base provides and obsoletes "xscreensaver" is there
to provide some measure of backwards compatibility. Moving
forward...nothing new should be built providing or requring
"xscreensaver". What you are seeing is one of the side-effects of this
approach. As soon as control-center catches up and starts requiring
"xscreensaver-base" you can have both cases that you are looking for.
-jef
8:56 a.m.
On Sep 9, 2005, Ricardo Veguilla Gonzalez <veguilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Problem #1 - Since gnome-screensaver is a gnome replacement for
xscreensaver
If it's a replacement for something in Core, it seems to me that it
should not be in Extras, but rather in an Alternatives repository, no?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva(a){redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva(a){lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
10:10 a.m.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:56:25AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If it's a replacement for something in Core, it seems to me that
it
should not be in Extras, but rather in an Alternatives repository, no?
Maybe if such a thing existed.
Isn't this essentially the same problem as GNU Emacs vs. XEmacs?
XEmacs is in Extras these days...
Steve
--
Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc.
Email: steve(a)kspei.com http://www.kspei.com/
Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320
10:54 a.m.
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 10:10 -0500, Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:56:25AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> If it's a replacement for something in Core, it seems to me that it
> should not be in Extras, but rather in an Alternatives repository, no?
Maybe if such a thing existed.
Isn't this essentially the same problem as GNU Emacs vs. XEmacs?
How so? GNU Emacs and XEmacs coexist just fine, neither is a
replacement for the other.
11:42 a.m.
On 10 Sep 2005 10:56:25 -0300, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sep 9, 2005, Ricardo Veguilla Gonzalez <veguilla(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Problem #1 - Since gnome-screensaver is a gnome replacement for
> xscreensaver
If it's a replacement for something in Core, it seems to me that it
should not be in Extras, but rather in an Alternatives repository, no?
Its not clear to me whether or not gnome-screensaver is actually
mutually exclusive with xscreensaver. It might be more like
mozilla/firefox like relationship. with the xscreensaver-extras are
"plugins" that both can use.
If there are no explict file conflicts users might very well be able
to have both installed...or replace one with the other for similar
functionality. Certaintly users will not be able to run both
xscreensaver and gnome-screensaver at the same time..but I don't think
that sort of thing is a blocker from extras. I haven't actually tried
to mock up his specfile yet to see if there are file conflicts though.
If the intent is to have installation of gnome-screensaver to always
remove xscreensaver-base automatically..then no..thats not extras
appropriate.
-jef
4:20 p.m.
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:42 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Its not clear to me whether or not gnome-screensaver is actually
mutually exclusive with xscreensaver. It might be more like
mozilla/firefox like relationship. with the xscreensaver-extras are
"plugins" that both can use.
No, they aren't mutually exclusive.
If there are no explict file conflicts users might very well be able
to have both installed...or replace one with the other for similar
functionality. Certaintly users will not be able to run both
xscreensaver and gnome-screensaver at the same time..but I don't think
that sort of thing is a blocker from extras. I haven't actually tried
to mock up his specfile yet to see if there are file conflicts though.
No file conflicts.
If the intent is to have installation of gnome-screensaver to always
remove xscreensaver-base automatically..then no..thats not extras
appropriate.
That's not my intend, but until the xscreensaver requirement in the
control-center rpm is changed, I don't see another way installing
both at the same time.
--
Ricardo Veguilla González <veguilla(a)gmail.com>
5:14 p.m.
On 9/10/05, Ricardo Veguilla González <veguilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's not my intend, but until the xscreensaver requirement in
the
control-center rpm is changed, I don't see another way installing
both at the same time.
I think you have it backwards... if they dont inherently
conflict..
then you can easily have both installed at the same time. Just have
gnome-screensaver provide "xscreensaver-base" forget about providing
"xscreensaver" or obsoleting anything.
But instead of trying to explain this.. I'd like to just edit your
spec file and give you some binary packages that show exactly what im
talking about by rebuilding this with mock. Unfortunately the spec
file you have available right now isnt rebuilding cleanly in mock for
fc4 nor for fedora core development. The build process is failing out
in the configuration process.. can you look into that?
-jef
5:40 p.m.
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 18:14 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 9/10/05, Ricardo Veguilla González <veguilla(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> That's not my intend, but until the xscreensaver requirement in the
> control-center rpm is changed, I don't see another way installing
> both at the same time.
I think you have it backwards... if they dont inherently conflict..
then you can easily have both installed at the same time. Just have
gnome-screensaver provide "xscreensaver-base" forget about providing
"xscreensaver" or obsoleting anything.
I see what you mean, and it will clearly work if both are installed at
the same time, but if you only want gnome-screensaver, then it won't
work because control-center requires xscreensaver (not
xscreensaver-base).
But instead of trying to explain this.. I'd like to just edit
your
spec file and give you some binary packages that show exactly what im
talking about by rebuilding this with mock. Unfortunately the spec
file you have available right now isnt rebuilding cleanly in mock for
fc4 nor for fedora core development. The build process is failing out
in the configuration process.. can you look into that?
I'll check it out.
--
Ricardo Veguilla González <veguilla(a)gmail.com>
7:11 p.m.
Ricardo Veguilla González wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 18:14 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>On 9/10/05, Ricardo Veguilla González <veguilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>That's not my intend, but until the xscreensaver requirement in the
>>control-center rpm is changed, I don't see another way installing
>>both at the same time.
>
>I think you have it backwards... if they dont inherently conflict..
>then you can easily have both installed at the same time. Just have
>gnome-screensaver provide "xscreensaver-base" forget about providing
>"xscreensaver" or obsoleting anything.
>
I see what you mean, and it will clearly work if both are installed at
the same time, but if you only want gnome-screensaver, then it won't
work because control-center requires xscreensaver (not
xscreensaver-base).
That's an issue to take up with control-center and it's packaging,
which, IMO, you shouldn't try to fix or workaround here (in
gnome-screensaver), especially since your Obsoletes/Provides hackery
could very well break kdeartwork's use/Require's of xscreensaver.
-- Rex
7:13 p.m.
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 18:14 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Unfortunately the spec
file you have available right now isnt rebuilding cleanly in mock for
fc4 nor for fedora core development. The build process is failing out
in the configuration process.. can you look into that?
Ok, first of all, I forgot to set the gtk2-devel requirement to 2.7.0 or
newer, which means that gnome-screensaver won't build in FC4. The
pam-devel requirement was also missing.
The configure error was cause the libgnome-devel rpm missing the
gnome-keyring-devel requirement. I explicitly added the
gnome-keyring-devel requirement to gnome-screensaver as a workaround.
Please try again.
http://ece.uprm.edu/~veguilla/fedora/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver....
http://ece.uprm.edu/~veguilla/fedora/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver-...
--
Ricardo Veguilla González <veguilla(a)gmail.com>
7:56 p.m.
On 9/10/05, Ricardo Veguilla González <veguilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Okay... i made the small change in the Specfile and I got a binary
that installs in parallel with xscreensaver. I also made an example
rebuild of control-center with the requires change.
If you use update to that control-center binary.. you can then remove
xscreensaver-base if gnome-screensaver is installed. Thats basically
how you solve the problems in the original post to this thread. We'd
actually be better off if we could drop that screensaver "packagename"
requirement in control-center completely.. since its sort of abusing
"requirement" in the strict sense...but thats a long debate to be had
with the Core desktop developers and its not going to be solved in
this thread.
rawhide synced rpms and srpms are located at:
jef.is-a-geek.com/downloads/gnome-screensaver/
I'll note however gnome-screensaver doesn't appear to actually work as
advertised on my initial attempt to use it and isnt seeing
xscreensaver-extras. And you are going to have to do something to make
it obvious which entry in the prefs menu is gnome-screensaver instead
of xscreensaver. But I'll leave further exploration of these topics
for the bugzilla review process.
-jef
5:28 a.m.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:56:40 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 9/10/05, Ricardo Veguilla González <veguilla(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>http://ece.uprm.edu/~veguilla/fedora/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver.spec
Okay... i made the small change in the Specfile and I got a binary
that installs in parallel with xscreensaver. I also made an example
rebuild of control-center with the requires change.
If you use update to that control-center binary.. you can then remove
xscreensaver-base if gnome-screensaver is installed. Thats basically
how you solve the problems in the original post to this thread. We'd
actually be better off if we could drop that screensaver "packagename"
requirement in control-center completely.. since its sort of abusing
"requirement" in the strict sense...but thats a long debate to be had
with the Core desktop developers and its not going to be solved in
this thread.
rawhide synced rpms and srpms are located at:
jef.is-a-geek.com/downloads/gnome-screensaver/
The whole discussion is pointless as long as there are virtual provides
in the Extras package which interfere with Core package names. This is a
show-stopper. Upgrading xscreensaver-base currently removes
gnome-screensaver, simply because gnome-screensaver "Provides:
xscreensaver-base".
--
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)users.sf.net>
Fedora Core release 5 (Development) - Linux 2.6.13-1.1549_FC5
loadavg: 1.90 1.51 1.33
8:06 a.m.
On 9/15/05, Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> wrote:
The whole discussion is pointless as long as there are virtual
provides
in the Extras package which interfere with Core package names. This is a
show-stopper. Upgrading xscreensaver-base currently removes
gnome-screensaver, simply because gnome-screensaver "Provides:
xscreensaver-base".
damn it, you're right. So basically there needs to be a seperate
virtual provides that is not keyed to a packagename that both
xscreensavers-base and gnome-screensaver can provide that
xscreensavers-extras can require. Like the "webclient" provides
shared by several core packages.
-jef
2:41 p.m.
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 10:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Sep 9, 2005, Ricardo Veguilla Gonzalez <veguilla(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Problem #1 - Since gnome-screensaver is a gnome replacement for
> xscreensaver
If it's a replacement for something in Core, it seems to me that it
should not be in Extras, but rather in an Alternatives repository, no?
There is no such thing as Fedora Alternatives, nor do I really see a
reason for it. Many of the items in Extras qualify as "Alternatives" to
things in Core. Rather than segmenting these packages off into some sort
of special repository (which doesn't solve the problems that
gnome-screensaver faces), it would be easier to fix packages which
hardcode on name (in this case control-center), and possibly use
alternatives to manage it (similar to how sendmail/postfix are handled).
IMHO, of course. :)
~spot
--
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
6796
days inactive
6802
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
16 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Alexandre Oliva -
Jef Spaleta -
Michael Schwendt -
Rex Dieter -
Ricardo Veguilla -
Steven Pritchard -
Tom Callaway -
Ville Skyttä