Overview
Request 840414 accepted
Plasma 5.20.0, second try
- Created by Vogtinator
- In state accepted
- Supersedes 840402
Maybe remove this from kde-gtk-config5.spec?
# Dropped upstream in 5.20.0
BuildRequires: cmake(KF5Service)
Typo in kscreenlocker.changes:
- Drop unneeded seccomp build requiremend
-> requiremen_t_
plasma5-desktop.changes:
* Apply 1 suggestion(s) to 1 file(s)
Should maybe be removed I think...
plasma5-disks should maybe Provide/Obsolete plasma-disk (even if it was only available in KDE:Frameworks5 so far...)
OTOH, I just saw that we do have plasma-vault as well, instead of plasma5-vault. Maybe that should be renamed as well? (that's not related to this update of course)
Did all four. The "apply suggestion" message is probably from a gitlab merge without cherry-pick, which is something currently getting discussed upstream... It'll likely show up in the official changelog as well.
The "5" suffix should ideally be used for every package which can be coinstallable with other major versions. It's already missing for most Frameworks though, so plasma-vault is just one of many... IMO something for later, when we actually need it.
There have been a couple of respins on Friday though:
https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/2020-October/012047.html
I suppose they are not included here yet?
Indeed not, I didn't get a mail and it wasn't mentioned on IRC either... I'll switch them over right away.
FYI, systemsettings5 had another 2 respins since yesterday, one to fix the build (that was broken in the previous respin) and one to remove the build directory from the tarball that was mistakenly included...
https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/2020-October/012060.html
Yeah, the first was reported by @cgiboudeaux and the latter reported by me (on IRC). I'm fed up with last-minute broken respins, so the current sr is (again) the initial known working 5.20.0 tarball. The fix is fortunately not that important.
(See https://build.opensuse.org/package/revisions/KDE:Frameworks5/systemsettings5 - I tried...)
I saw that, but there have been 2 respins since then.
Although, my main concern was that the Factory bot will reject the submission (because the tarball is different), but the packages don't contain Source URLs anyway (I forgot about that).
AFAIK just one, the presumably fixed one.
The initial submission of pre-release tarballs is always without source URLs for that reason, the signature file is enough to pass oS:F review in such cases.