Re: Binary incompatible change in KMime - was - Re: KDE Applications 17.04 beta packages available
Ok, I had the thought that this was the case nagging in the back of my mind, hence my question whether this was intentional. Thanks for clearing this up. Philip Am 29.03.2017 um 09:29 schrieb laurent Montel: Le mercredi 29 mars 2017, 09:03:41 CEST David Faure a écrit : On mercredi 29 mars 2017 00:08:12 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote: Laurent, i guess you should increase the SOVERSION in the CMakeLists.txt? I thought the PIM libs didn't promise BC yet? It's the case we don't promise BC. Commit 334f7b9 is what did this, better revert it than adjust SOVERSION, IMHO. Nope we will not revert it. But if packagers want to do it they can do it in own packages but not in official relase. But we made BIC commits in other PIM libs recently too, I was told this was OK... For sure we created a lot of BIC and we will not increase soversion. We never promise BC in pim. Regards.
Re: KDE Applications 17.04 beta packages available
Hi, there is a BIC change in kmime from 334f7b979f5106867b2d41a9addd7844d192e41a : - _ZNK5KMime5Types7Mailbox13prettyAddressEv@Base 15.07.90 +#MISSING: 16.12.3+p17.04+git20170328.1132-0# _ZNK5KMime5Types7Mailbox13prettyAddressEv@Base 15.07.90 could someone either add the function back or increase the so version? (or is that intentionally still the same?) Built in kubuntu zesty. Philip On 24.03.2017 12:54, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > Couldn't compile lots of pim packages because my build server didn't have > qwebengine, but i trust CI in that it's fine. > > The rest compiled fine. > > ktp-text-ui wrongly requires Qt 5.6 instead of 5.7, will be fixed for RC. > > I'll put up the "public webpage" announcement later this evening. > > https://community.kde.org/Applications/17.04_Release_Notes contains notable > changes, says NOT FINAL because i want to give it another read this evening > but i think it should be almost complete. > > Cheers, > Albert >
Re: Review of special packager access
Hi Ben, for Ubuntu I would be the relevant contact until someone says otherwise and we're very much still there ;) While I'll look at the old keys soon, would it help you if we put a #Contact: at the top of the key list? Or do you have another place where that can be set? Philip Muskovac Kubuntu Developer Am 08.07.2016 um 13:39 schrieb Ben Cooksley: Hi all, My apologies if you're not a packager or someone associated with a distribution - you can ignore this email. Packagers, please read on as this contains important details. First: If you're a packager, please ensure you are subscribed to kde-distro-packag...@kde.org, which is our usual list for communicating with packagers. It would seem a number of you are missing from there :) Prompted by a recent email I took a look at the list of accounts (one per distribution) which are provided in order to facilitate early access to packages - however for many i've no idea who would be the relevant point of contact. I'd therefore like for someone from each distribution to please confirm that their distro is still active and who can serve as a general point of contact for that distribution. It would also be appreciated if folks could check over their ~/.ssh/authorized keys file and remove any outdated keys. If your distribution has completely lost access, please have someone with an email address belonging to that distribution's domain email sysad...@kde.org to sort that out. KDE servers normally use a format something like this to clearly label whose key(s) are whose, for those that might find it helpful.: ## Name ssh-rsa ## Next Name The list of accounts, which should approximately correspond to distributions, is as follows: - Active - Aix - Aosc - Archlinux - Arklinux - Asplinux - Bluewhite64 - Chakra - Conectiva - Crux - Darwin - Debian - Exherbo - Fedora - FreeBSD - Gentoo - Kaos - Mageia - Magic - Mandriva - Meego - NetBSD - OpenBSD - PCLinuxOS - PLD - Redhat - Rpath - Siduction - Slackware - Slamd64 - SUSE - Tld - Tru64 - Tukaani - Turbo - Ubuntu - Uludag - Uoirix - Uomandriva - Uosolaris - Vine - Yellow - Yoper In two weeks time we'll go ahead and disable ones we don't get a response from. Thanks, Ben Cooksley KDE Sysadmin ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: KDE Frameworks 5.18.0
On Saturday, January 02, 2016 06:30:04 PM David Faure wrote: > Dear packagers, > > KDE Frameworks 5.18.0 has been uploaded to the usual place. > > New frameworks: none this time. > > Public release next Saturday. > > Thanks for the packaging work! > > Hi, in Kubuntu we noticed that with 5.18 the at login from kwallet-pam launched kwallet instance was causing dbus timeouts, which Martin K. and Christoph C. were nice enough to track down and provide a patch [1] for. Just FYI in case someone else hits this. Philip [1] https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126681/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: 4.13.1 packages
On Friday 09 May 2014 16:45:16 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > Hi the 4.13.1 packages are at they usual location. > > Atteched REVIOSIONS_AND_HASHES > > Cheers, > Albert FYI: I'm reverting 9fed45112711cf203a03ba3b3ed5ca0ee796c836 e6ebd9b593dfd366b8c57932cc3167a8a3ec5b3b in the kubuntu kdepim 4.13.1 package as dropping library packages isn't really something that we can do in bugfix releases unless there's a *good* reason. @Laurent: was there actually a real issue that was fixed by removing those? I can't really see anything other than "unfinished, remove for now" which is more code cleanup than a bugfix... (And I'll need more than that as a reason if I'm supposed to convince our archive admins that this is a good idea) On that note, release team: does the kde stable branch policy actually permit something like this? (post-release I mean) Philip ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: kde-workspace 4.10.90 ABI breakage in libtaskmanager
On Thursday 27 June 2013 20:08:37 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El Dijous, 27 de juny de 2013, a les 15:52:13, Philip Muskovac va escriure: > > Hi, > > > > b7e30e489f21e09f31e04dab6e8f130764e63671 from Aaron > > > > #MISSING: 4:4.10.90# > > _ZN11TaskManager4Task12addTransientEmRK10NETWinInfo@ABI_4_3 4:4.8.3 -> > > TaskManager::Task::addTransient(unsigned long, NETWinInfo const&) > > > > > > and 42c8fde45cfde9cb594d7468c5a91b372cca3664 from Gregor Tätzner > > > > #MISSING: 4:4.10.90# > > _ZN11TaskManager9BasicMenuC1EP7QWidgetPNS_8TaskItemEPNS_12GroupManagerE5QLi > > stIP7QActionESA_@ABI_4_3 4:4.8.3 -> > > TaskManager::BasicMenu::BasicMenu(QWidget*, TaskManager::TaskItem*, > > TaskManager::GroupManager*, QList, QList) > > > > #MISSING: 4:4.10.90# > > _ZN11TaskManager9BasicMenuC1EP7QWidgetPNS_9TaskGroupEPNS_12GroupManagerE5QL > > istIP7QActionESA_@ABI_4_3 4:4.8.3 -> > > TaskManager::BasicMenu::BasicMenu(QWidget*, TaskManager::TaskGroup*, > > TaskManager::GroupManager*, QList, QList) > > > > break the ABI of libtaskmanager.so.4 in 4.10.90. > > > > Could we please get those back as KDE_DEPRECATED or instead get the > > SOVERSION bumped? Thanks! > > Wait, the soname of the library has already been bumped to 4.11, no? > > What do you want it bumped to? > > Or are you complaining about a ABI break between 4.10.80 and 4.10.90? 1) The soversion of the library is '4', that the library version is 4.11.0 is irrelevant to the ABI versioning. I don't know what list describes which KDE libraries are public and which private, but the relevant parts of the taskmanager API above are shipped and installed by kde-workspace in an exported class as 'public:' methods which makes it public API (and there are a few third-party taskmanager replacements using it, albeit only a few). If you want to keep using the same soversion as the rest of the SC please add those symbols back, otherwise the soversion needs to be changed to '5'. 2) Yes, this happened after 4.10.80 and is only in 4.10.90 Cheers, Philip ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Fwd: kde-workspace 4.10.90 ABI breakage in libtaskmanager
I forgot to add the release-team as cc -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: kde-workspace 4.10.90 ABI breakage in libtaskmanager Date: Thursday 27 June 2013, 15:52:13 From: Philip Muskovac To: kde-packa...@kde.org, Aaron J. Seigo , gre...@freenet.de Hi, b7e30e489f21e09f31e04dab6e8f130764e63671 from Aaron #MISSING: 4:4.10.90# _ZN11TaskManager4Task12addTransientEmRK10NETWinInfo@ABI_4_3 4:4.8.3 -> TaskManager::Task::addTransient(unsigned long, NETWinInfo const&) and 42c8fde45cfde9cb594d7468c5a91b372cca3664 from Gregor Tätzner #MISSING: 4:4.10.90# _ZN11TaskManager9BasicMenuC1EP7QWidgetPNS_8TaskItemEPNS_12GroupManagerE5QListIP7QActionESA_@ABI_4_3 4:4.8.3 -> TaskManager::BasicMenu::BasicMenu(QWidget*, TaskManager::TaskItem*, TaskManager::GroupManager*, QList, QList) #MISSING: 4:4.10.90# _ZN11TaskManager9BasicMenuC1EP7QWidgetPNS_9TaskGroupEPNS_12GroupManagerE5QListIP7QActionESA_@ABI_4_3 4:4.8.3 -> TaskManager::BasicMenu::BasicMenu(QWidget*, TaskManager::TaskGroup*, TaskManager::GroupManager*, QList, QList) break the ABI of libtaskmanager.so.4 in 4.10.90. Could we please get those back as KDE_DEPRECATED or instead get the SOVERSION bumped? Thanks! Cheers, Philip Muskovac - ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Who is using "-Bsymbolic-functions" for their packages?
On Tuesday 28 May 2013 01:40:54 Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013, 19:55:43 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thursday 23 May 2013 at 17:51:02, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > > in a discussion about a crash fix patch the opinion was uttered that the
> > > linker flag "-Bsymbolic-functions" should not be used, because it might
> > > change the symbol-lookup behaviour in a way that developers do not
> > > expect.
> > > See https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110563/ ("Crash fix: hide symbols
> > > from static lib QtUitools.a (generically by new macro
> > > KDE4_HIDE_SYMBOLS_FROM_STATIC_LIBS)")
>
> No other packagers are using -Bsymbolic-functions?
It's enabled by default on Ubuntu as well. (Also for several years now)
Philip
___
release-team mailing list
release-team@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: 4.10.2 tarballs
On Friday 29 March 2013 16:48:07 Torgny Nyblom wrote: > On Friday 29 March 2013 16.39.46 Philip Muskovac wrote: > > Hi, > > > > as 4.10.2 tagging was supposed to be yesterday according to the schedule, > > is something holding the tarballs back or is it just that you're short on > > time with it being easter and all? > > Tagging was done early this morning and all tarballs are sitting on the ftp > master waiting for someone with the proper access to make them available to > packagers. > > I'll send an announcement to the proper lists once the tarballs are > available. > > The release is then planned to Tuesday. Ok, thanks for the heads up! Philip ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
4.10.2 tarballs
Hi, as 4.10.2 tagging was supposed to be yesterday according to the schedule, is something holding the tarballs back or is it just that you're short on time with it being easter and all? Regards, Philip Muskovac ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
KDE SC 4.9.3 Tag
Hi, I don't find any svn/git tags for 4.9.3. Was it intentionally not tagged or did someone just forget to do it? (Or did I miss something?) Regards, Philip Muskovac ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
tarball generation question
Hi, I was asked by the folks that maintain the VCS source imports for Ubuntu how exactly you are generating the xz tarballs. Currently their scripts fail to reproduce the tarballs once the source is imported (they told me it failed for analita 4.8.2 at least [1]) So could you please tell me what application, version and parameters you are using to generate the tarballs? Philip Muskovac [1] http://package- import.ubuntu.com/status/analitza.html#2012-04-04%2002:06:33.804866 ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Missing french documentation for kstars in 4.8.3/4.8.4
Hi, we just got pointed to the fact that in the 4.8.3 release the french kstars documentation was removed [1]. That was done in svn rev 1292134 as it doesn't seem to build anymore. While we appreciate that you're trying to give us packagers working translations, please don't just drop things in a point release. If things break due to a change please at least ship the last working version instead as this now counts as a regression from 4.8.2. I've filed a bug [2] about this and would appreciate it if this could be fixed in 4.6.4 if still possible. Thanks, Philip [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/kdeedu/+bug/1008729 [2] https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=301180 ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Request for splitting oxygen-icons tarball
On 02/27/2012 01:20 AM, Max Brazhnikov wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:47:11 +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote: On Sunday 26 February 2012 23:29:37 Max Brazhnikov wrote: Does debian's oxygen-icon-theme package, which contains only png icons, violate the license? No. just like debian's systemsettings package, which contains compiled code also doesn't violate the license. Why oxygen-icons split on two tarballs, one with png icons and another with svg only, will violate the license, while systemsettings debian package + kde-workspaces source tarball don't? In both cases, the sources is a apt-get source away. In both cases you get the tarball created by Dirk What's the difference then? that's hopefully obvious. Not for me apparently :). Could you clarify it or point me at good explanation? /Sune More than splitting the package, I would rather like to have a sane compression applied to it as I mentioned previously: 359M oxygen-icons-4.8.0.tar.bz2 203M oxygen-icons-4.8.0.tar.xz using xz -9 cuts of "just" 156M for me. Such a huge tarball is a bit of a pain to handle, even if I agree with Sune that having all icons in one place is handy. Philip ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: KDE 4.8 Beta2 (4.7.90) tarballs uploaded
On 12/03/2011 11:22 AM, Dirk Mueller wrote: Hi, just finished uploading the Beta2 tarballs. I've applied a small patch to kdelibs to make it look like a 4.8 version, although it is taken from 4.7 branch. Still doing some basic testing on it, please let me know if you find any issues. Thanks! Dirk Hi, Thanks for the tars, but shouldn't Beta2 be 4.7.85 and RC1 4.7.90? Philip ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: KDE 4.7.2 (try#1) uploaded
On 10/02/2011 06:27 PM, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote: On Sunday 02 of October 2011, Dirk Mueller wrote: Hi, I just finished uploading KDE 4.7.2 tarballs. Unlike previous tarballs, these have been consistently taken from KDE/4.7 branch in git. Let me know of any issues (my own build is still running). kde-l10n is still being generated and will be uploaded in ~ 3 hours. kdeaccessibility tarball is missing (was in 4.7.1) Add kdeutils to that list, making it both split packages that are missing. Philip Muskovac ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Too generic name of mobipocket tarball.
Hi, We (the kubuntu team) were discussing the package name for mobipocket and in our opinion 'mobipocket' is a far too generic name for the tarball since it's not the only source that deals with mobipocket files and doesn't contain a "mobipocket" application either as you would think seeing how the other tarballs are named. Can that be renamed into kdegraphics-mobipocket or similiar so the tarball name has some relation to it's contents? Regards, Philip Muskovac ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: KDE 4.7 RC1 tarballs uploaded (try #2)
On 06/23/2011 07:44 PM, Dirk Mueller wrote: > On Thursday 23 June 2011, Dirk Mueller wrote: > >> just finished uploading the first set of KDE 4.7 RC1 (4.6.90) tarballs, not >> well tested yet so far. > > Hi, > > ok, so that was completely bogus. I'm still learning the git basics it seems > (never try to use git --mirror and clone -s if you don't know exactly how it > works :-( ). I guess I should buy a bigger harddisk than trying to fit > everything on one. > > So I uploaded a new set of tarballs. its all fresh, and it seems to build now. > > (Ive renamed the old dir to 4.6.90-broken, new one is 4.6.90). > > Thanks, > Dirk Thanks! These look fine so far. Philip ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: KDE 4.7 RC1 tarballs uploaded (try #1)
On 06/23/2011 12:38 AM, Dirk Mueller wrote: > > Hi, > > just finished uploading the first set of KDE 4.7 RC1 (4.6.90) tarballs, not > well tested yet so far. > > this is the split build, and the l10n tarballs are still bulding. I'll spend > some time on the "superbuilds", or the consolidated tarballs tomorrow. > > Thanks, > Dirk Hi, Can you please recheck the contents of the tarballs? kdelibs, kdepimlibs and kde-workspace for example (probably the others too) are versioned 4.6.80, not 4.6.90. Thanks, Philip ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
