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
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 +,
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:
>
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.
--
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,
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
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:
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
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
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
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).
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)
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:
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
-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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo