Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-25 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 13/01/16 11:07 +0200, Kari Koskinen wrote: It is not too late. The point of updates testing is to catch problems before they land in stable. Dealing with occasional downgrade is part of running up dates testing. At this point it seems clear that updating KeepasX to version 2 on Fedora 22

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-13 Thread Kari Koskinen
Apologies for spamming this thread with multiple copies. I was having some problems with Claws Mail SMTP settings. 2016-01-13 11:16 GMT+02:00 Juan Orti Alcaine : > 2016-01-13 2:13 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wakely : > > On 12/01/16 22:59 +,

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-13 Thread Juan Orti Alcaine
2016-01-13 2:13 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wakely : > On 12/01/16 22:59 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> The old version could be added as keepassx1, or just via COPR, for >> those who still want it. > > > I've created a COPR with keepassx 0.4.4 builds for F22 and F23: >

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-13 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 13/01/16 10:16 +0100, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote: Could you please rename the package to keepassx1? I wish them to be installed in parallel. It's not as simple as renaming the package. It would mean renaming the binary and everything under /usr/share, which I don't have time to do, sorry. --

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-13 Thread Kari Koskinen
2016-01-13 0:59 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely : > So how should the maintainer proceed? > > The policy was violated, but it's done now. F23 has already been > updated, F22 has an update in testing now (with negative karma). > > The old version could be added as keepassx1,

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-13 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 13/01/16 11:07 +0200, Kari Koskinen wrote: I don't see need for Keepass 0.4 package for Fedora 23. A COPR for those who need it for compatibility would be enough at this point. Agreed, that can be found here: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jwakely/keepassx1/ Though, Fedora 22

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Ankur Sinha
On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 10:42 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > P.S. the people who want version 2 already had *several* COPRs to > choose from that provide version 2. Pushing it to the stable releases > was really not necessary. Seems to be hitting users too:

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12/01/16 12:54 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote: Given that people have already had their databases upgraded to .kdbx (but the v1 .kdb file is still there), instead of downgrading keepassx which is now at v2, you could inroduce a new keepassx1 package. It might be cleaner that way now that the v2

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Chuck Anderson
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:41:24AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > I'm concerned by this update too. > > The latest post in Bugzilla says: > > (In reply to Francesco Frassinelli (frafra) from comment #35) > >(In reply to Ed Marshall from comment #33) > >> (and, obviously, send email to the

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12/01/16 18:50 +0100, Jens Lody wrote: keepassx 2 uses kdbx file-ending, while keepassx 0.4 uses kdb. I have updated and converted, but the old file is still present and untouched. Oh good! So then there's even less reason not to support parallel installations of both versions. The only

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Jens Lody
Am Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:41:24 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely : > On 12/01/16 01:47 -0800, Ed Marshall wrote: > >Bringing this discussion to the mailing list, since it's all > >apparently happened in bugzilla until now (and I only found out when > >I updated this evening).

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12/01/16 01:47 -0800, Ed Marshall wrote: Bringing this discussion to the mailing list, since it's all apparently happened in bugzilla until now (and I only found out when I updated this evening). For reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282825 This update (0.4.3 to 2.0.0)

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12/01/16 10:41 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 12/01/16 01:47 -0800, Ed Marshall wrote: Bringing this discussion to the mailing list, since it's all apparently happened in bugzilla until now (and I only found out when I updated this evening). For reference:

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Martin Ueding
I was rather surprised by this too. When the UI changed I was already a bit sceptical as KeePassX has not changed in like five years. When it did not open the old database I knew that I was served version 2. A short look in the dnf automatic update emails confirmed that. The mid-release break was

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Mukundan Ragavan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 01/12/2016 03:38 PM, Martin Ueding wrote: > I was rather surprised by this too. When the UI changed I was > already a bit sceptical as KeePassX has not changed in like five > years. When it did not open the old database I knew that I was > served

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
So how should the maintainer proceed? The policy was violated, but it's done now. F23 has already been updated, F22 has an update in testing now (with negative karma). The old version could be added as keepassx1, or just via COPR, for those who still want it. Since some people will already

Re: keepassx 2.0?

2016-01-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12/01/16 22:59 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: The old version could be added as keepassx1, or just via COPR, for those who still want it. I've created a COPR with keepassx 0.4.4 builds for F22 and F23: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jwakely/keepassx1/build/153188/ -- devel mailing list