On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:18:10 -0400 Bill Nottingham wrote: > Rahul Sundaram (methe...@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 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel