On 08.04.2013, at 15:08, Jan-Christoph Borchardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> And yeah, I agree that »3rd party« sounds a bit strange and mechanical. We > should probably rename it to »Community apps« to make it more clear. I agree that 3rd party doens't sounds great. But I don't like community because the core apps are also developed by our community :-) Frank > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Bernhard Posselt <[email protected]> wrote: > Can you tell me the exact versions in your info.xml and the version of > owncloud that doesnt work? > > > On 04/08/2013 08:26 AM, Arman Khalatyan wrote: >> +1 >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Christian Reiner >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello all, >> sorry if I raise that issue again - but frankly I get annoyed with that >> issue: >> >> Again some apps cannot be installed by just 'activating' them inside the >> 'apps' section of an ownCloud-5.0.3 installation. The result is the unfamous: >> "the app cannot be installed because it is not compatible with this version >> of >> ownCloud". >> >> 1.) this is just not true. >> 2.) the check that leads to this statement does not make sense. >> 3.) this issue has existed for quite some time now, why is it not fixed? >> >> I do understand that this issue is not a direct problem for the "core apps" >> developed and bundled by the core team. But if ownCloud really is meant to >> attract a community of developers coding what is called "3rd party apps" >> (btw: >> why "3rd"?), then such issues must be fixed. The issue has been addressed >> many >> many times before and it is documented in the issue tracker. >> I also do understand that it makes sense to have some means to block "old" >> apps that are really not compatible with newer versions of ownCloud, since >> these might crash the ownCloud core. Although in my eyes this is a >> shortcomming of the plugin architecture ownCloud implements for apps, this is >> another issue. The problem at hand is simply the version control check done - >> which blocks many apps from being installed without any reason. >> >> I am getting more and more frustrated having to adapt the appinfo/info.xml >> file for apps every two weeks or so to prevent that apps are being blocked >> again. >> - Why is there no announcement that such thing is required? Are 3rd party app >> developers meant to sniff that from thin air? >> - Why is a change required anyway? I just stumbled over an app (the imprint >> app) that could be installed fine inside OC-5.0.0. Now with OC-5.0.3 it is >> blocked again. Why? Probably there is a reason why something was changed >> again, but that means a change of the app API between two minor versions - >> that is something one does not do. With good reasons. Especially not without >> taking care that some backwards compatibility exists. >> >> Christian Reiner (arkascha) >> [ Probably cooled down again in a few hours ] >> >> PS: and no personal offense meant, really not. >> I just try to bring that issue up so that it is recognized as an urgent >> issue. >> _______________________________________________ >> Owncloud mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Owncloud mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud > > > _______________________________________________ > Owncloud mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud > > > _______________________________________________ > Owncloud mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud _______________________________________________ Owncloud mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud
