Re: keepassx 2.0?
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 would be undesirable. Given the keepassx 2.0.0 has a serious bug that causes it to corrupt its database, with apparently no way to recover it, should it be downgraded again in rawhide? See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282825#c36 for the link to the bug. The decision might be easier if F23 hadn't already been updated :-( -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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 keepassx2 subpackage would be nice for those users who need to synchronize the database between Fedora versions. It is still easier to find packages in official repositories than COPR for non-technical users. I'll leave that to Francesco to do if he still wants v2 to be available in F22. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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 +, 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/ > > Could you please rename the package to keepassx1? I wish them to be > installed in parallel. > > Thank you. > > -- > Juan Orti > https://apuntesderootblog.wordpress.com/ > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Kari Koskinen -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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: > https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jwakely/keepassx1/build/153188/ Could you please rename the package to keepassx1? I wish them to be installed in parallel. Thank you. -- Juan Orti https://apuntesderootblog.wordpress.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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, or just via COPR, for > those who still want it. > 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. Since some people will already have the new version from F22's > updates-testing repo maybe it's too late for F22 as well and it should > be pushed to stable. In that case keepassx1 would be useful for F22 > too. 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 would be undesirable. Though, Fedora 22 keepassx2 subpackage would be nice for those users who need to synchronize the database between Fedora versions. It is still easier to find packages in official repositories than COPR for non-technical users. -- Kari Koskinen -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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 have the new version from F22's updates-testing repo maybe it's too late for F22 as well and it should be pushed to stable. In that case keepassx1 would be useful for F22 too. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
-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 version 2. A short look in the dnf automatic update emails > confirmed that. > > The mid-release break was unexpected. I have converted my database > now and kept the old one. As there is nothing wrong with 2.0 and > most of my devices are the same Fedora 23, I will be able to work > with the new database. > > I have thought that the version 2.0 would come eventually, just > not mid-release. So even if there would be a package for the old > version, I would not go back as the new one seems to work just as > well. +1. My thoughts exactly. Despite the fact that v2 was a surprise, no harm done since I used the import function (messages were clear) and I still have the older file untouched. Having said that, I would not want to go back to the older version either. My two cents .. - -- GPG Key - E5C8BC67 - --- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWlXy1AAoJEHE/1K3lyLxntU0QANXbX7F6N1+wJ9VmpUe9FLHj PsCdywWIik6sLNLV5fesxUiEKv+N5BOaoZJMOEffN9CXczN6nTzpQDk7FC7wNDqZ D9UkbvIXNyjX9itAxBSZhd7yKin5paEMy8zYOp1or5vGMeFhf2Z7HY7Po/yCK032 dtdLLlGb1tzKF2qFajzLKDQRkl5RE0EaMLHhvUCmMmw1QF2v1CvII65BtBff8kW4 Gsrxi6kheNYvfJxeHskDHRIETSph6yHiEtaWoGsy6NTg5qKu6tct5yuNrxYHTed2 T8nua+3NqyTIfVY4zXsSy7/e/Ba3TPlJN4o/jaeeDrpQIZ7g45ktPw3U/XrIZcSk OG92vu81DHMo/fZ/9UFcLuczNGAsQgE8bPACpg9sUFJSJTatcjKOLQ2Sre4xezCj hFc8LHHAJhtHs4oZYQ6gGpjDQ1q+lYsPAhLlViBC9IzGHpYXdBBgGpVQHc8v+k4Q DCGl+m2caqvCR6pdixEtB7EWdsp2Xg7OYAGg+Fsl6mVgFmuceQZEsGnb9rcs8z74 bcvOQTLQTVr3PFsV7lFoodsebCn6m545PrCes4bzYyegpIh49cfI1p2+p4yD18f1 uEWD3quyehNwo17YPD7WY3N7yOvkWE+0eynM0KA3FTBL1YuTCRkoj/bS3I5pXr4M omj/NBUjAmKKJ6sEfw+r =DZH4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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 unexpected. I have converted my database now and kept the old one. As there is nothing wrong with 2.0 and most of my devices are the same Fedora 23, I will be able to work with the new database. I have thought that the version 2.0 would come eventually, just not mid-release. So even if there would be a package for the old version, I would not go back as the new one seems to work just as well. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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 package has already gone out. Yes, although as I noted elsewhere in this thread, the update hasn't been pushed to stable for F22 yet, only updates-testing. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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 question in my mind is whether the new or old version should be called "keepassx", i.e. would it be keepassx1-0.4.4 and keepassx-2.0.0, or keepassx-0.4.4 and keepassx2-2.0.0 The answer might be different for F23 and F22, because the update to 2.0.0 has already been pushed to stable for F23, but not yet for F22. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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 mailing list, so users are > >> actually > >> notified this time rather than getting a surprise breaking upgrade > >> out of > >> the blue) > > > >I can't downgrade keepassx because many people upgraded their > >database > >(comment #34). > > Those people are presumably happy with version 2 (or are stuck with it > now). But there are other people refusing to upgrade because of this. > > A possible solution is to include both keepassx-0.4.4 and > keepassx2-2.0.0 in F22 and F23, so people can choose which version to > use based on their preference (and whether they've already upgraded > their databases). > > >I could provide a keepassx2 subpackage which replaces keepassx = > >2.0.0, but > >I'm not sure about how to handle Obsoletes/Provides in this case. > > Couldn't both be installed at the same time (if the binaries are > renamed)? You just can't use the same .kdb file with both versions. 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 package has already gone out. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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). > > > >For reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282825 > > > >This update (0.4.3 to 2.0.0) went out today, for both F22 and F23. It > >removes the ability to edit KeePass 1.x databases, and offers only a > >one-way import to 2.x databases. This breaks anyone depending on the > >ability to sync databases between devices mid-release. > > > >How is this possibly the correct thing to do for users in the middle > >of a release cycle? Could a keepassx2 package not have been pushed > >out, or barring that, a copr for the updated package for people to > >try out on their own if they need it today? Shouldn't breaking > >changes like this wait for release boundaries? (Isn't that why we > >have relatively short release cycles in the first place?) > > 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 mailing list, so users are > > > actually > > > notified this time rather than getting a surprise breaking upgrade > > > out of > > > the blue) > > > > I can't downgrade keepassx because many people upgraded their > > database > > (comment #34). > > Those people are presumably happy with version 2 (or are stuck with it > now). But there are other people refusing to upgrade because of this. > > A possible solution is to include both keepassx-0.4.4 and > keepassx2-2.0.0 in F22 and F23, so people can choose which version to > use based on their preference (and whether they've already upgraded > their databases). > > > I could provide a keepassx2 subpackage which replaces keepassx = > > 2.0.0, but > > I'm not sure about how to handle Obsoletes/Provides in this case. > > Couldn't both be installed at the same time (if the binaries are > renamed)? You just can't use the same .kdb file with both versions. 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. Jens pgpg23Iywwz41.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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: https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/81225/upgrade-to-keepassx-20- from-keepassx-04-unable-to-open-database/ -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282825 This update (0.4.3 to 2.0.0) went out today, for both F22 and F23. It removes the ability to edit KeePass 1.x databases, and offers only a one-way import to 2.x databases. This breaks anyone depending on the ability to sync databases between devices mid-release. How is this possibly the correct thing to do for users in the middle of a release cycle? Could a keepassx2 package not have been pushed out, or barring that, a copr for the updated package for people to try out on their own if they need it today? Shouldn't breaking changes like this wait for release boundaries? (Isn't that why we have relatively short release cycles in the first place?) 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 mailing list, so users are actually notified this time rather than getting a surprise breaking upgrade out of the blue) I can't downgrade keepassx because many people upgraded their database (comment #34). Those people are presumably happy with version 2 (or are stuck with it now). But there are other people refusing to upgrade because of this. A possible solution is to include both keepassx-0.4.4 and keepassx2-2.0.0 in F22 and F23, so people can choose which version to use based on their preference (and whether they've already upgraded their databases). I could provide a keepassx2 subpackage which replaces keepassx = 2.0.0, but I'm not sure about how to handle Obsoletes/Provides in this case. Couldn't both be installed at the same time (if the binaries are renamed)? You just can't use the same .kdb file with both versions. 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. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: keepassx 2.0?
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) went out today, for both F22 and F23. It removes the ability to edit KeePass 1.x databases, and offers only a one-way import to 2.x databases. This breaks anyone depending on the ability to sync databases between devices mid-release. How is this possibly the correct thing to do for users in the middle of a release cycle? Could a keepassx2 package not have been pushed out, or barring that, a copr for the updated package for people to try out on their own if they need it today? Shouldn't breaking changes like this wait for release boundaries? (Isn't that why we have relatively short release cycles in the first place?) 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 mailing list, so users are > actually > notified this time rather than getting a surprise breaking upgrade > out of > the blue) I can't downgrade keepassx because many people upgraded their database (comment #34). Those people are presumably happy with version 2 (or are stuck with it now). But there are other people refusing to upgrade because of this. A possible solution is to include both keepassx-0.4.4 and keepassx2-2.0.0 in F22 and F23, so people can choose which version to use based on their preference (and whether they've already upgraded their databases). I could provide a keepassx2 subpackage which replaces keepassx = 2.0.0, but I'm not sure about how to handle Obsoletes/Provides in this case. Couldn't both be installed at the same time (if the binaries are renamed)? You just can't use the same .kdb file with both versions. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
