[sword-devel] Xiphos crashes

[Greg Hellings]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Karl Kleinpaste <karl at kleinpaste.org>
wrote:

>  On 06/11/2014 09:59 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
>
> That is not The Fedora Way™ … I have been always proud, that in
> Fedora it is useless to have PPAs, because we have one shared
> PPA on which everybody can work — the Fedora itself.
> Couldn’t we just make single-spec package (with some %ifs if
> necessary) building on supported Fedoras (F19, F20, Rawhide, at
> the moment) and the last EPEL (for a moment, I would support
> EPEL-6 as well, but after half-a-year or so I would stick with
> just EPEL-7)?
> Would anybody mind if I just build the latest sword and xiphos
> for these repos?
>
>  As Greg and I have chatted in IRC, the perspective he's offered is that
> building for older releases is for bug and security vulnerabilities.  I
> disagree with this, but if that's Policy, I don't have a lot of say.
> Obviously there are bug fixes in each release, and I would think that
> justifies building for all currently-supported releases.  That's why I
> built Sword and Xiphos packages last evening for F19, which I've now been
> told work fine on F20, too.
>
> I of course won't mind if current versions get built for the official
> repos.
>

I'm just going off of what
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Philosophy this has to say.
For release n-1 (Fedora 19) the guidelines specifically state:


   - Push only major bug fixes and security fixes to release(n-1).


So I think this definitely rules out making "official" packages for Fedora
19. And the language there seems to indicate to me that building for Fedora
20 would not be encouraged mainly because Xiphos 3.2 requires sword 1.7.3
and the sword engine is not a "leaf node" as BibleTime would also depend on
it. Now, these rules are not tightly enforced for things like the Sword and
Xiphos packages, but unless there is a consensus that there are major bugs
fixed from Sword 1.7.2 to 1.7.3 and/or that there are major bugs in Xiphos
3.1.6 that are fixed in 3.2 I would rather not package for the current
release. If there are some major show-stopping bugs fixed then I'll gladly
merge down the new package to Fedora 20 and kick off the Bodhi updates.

--Greg


>
> So, should I close it as CANTFIX (or WONTFIX)?
>
> I would say "already fixed, by abandoning an old toolkit" but you can pick
> whatever notation is appropriate.
>
> So needinfo asking what’s the relevance of KDE? Does the GUI
> uses something weird like “Gnome theme making Gnome apps looking
> like KDE ones” (what’s its name)? It used to lead to many
> crashes, but I don’t know if such animal still exists in
> KDE4/Gnome3 world.
>
>  I'm unaware of any such animal at all.  From my perspective, any
> interaction with KDE is simply wrong.  So yes, need to understand how
> libproxy comes into the picture in the first place, and why it wants to
> interact with KDE.  Xiphos has no proxy support at all -- why is anything
> down there asking for *either* libproxy *or *KDE?
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20140611/d561645d/attachment.html>