Wednesday, 2024-02-28

*** amccarthy is now known as Guest127407:09
*** amccarthy_ is now known as amccarthy07:09
*** amccarthy is now known as Guest127708:01
*** amccarthy_ is now known as amccarthy08:01
nephrosrinigus, mal: Oh, pcre2 apparently was my addition. Wouldn't a "BuildRequires: sfos-version < 4.6.0" or something like that suffice?10:20
nephros^^^ which will lead the repos to be "excluded"10:53
malnephros: still could you make sure your build matches as close to sfos version as possible, that way devel devices don't have issues :)10:55
nephrosmal: sure, not a problem. ooking into it.11:14
direc85[m]<nephros> "mal: sure, not a problem. ooking..." <- ook? ook! (sorry, not sorry)11:36
nephrosUp to the 2010s, we grokked. Now we ook.12:05
*** amccarthy is now known as Guest129512:18
*** amccarthy_ is now known as amccarthy12:18
malnephros: looks like that new pcre2 built without issues12:19
nephrosI'll just Obsolete the old package names also13:35
nephrosHm, installing a package which Obsoletes: another should uninstall the Obsoleted one, correct? Or do I need a Conflicts: n addition?16:32
direc85[m]I don't know about pcre in particular, but at least with OpenSSL there can be multiple versions installed, since the filenames don't overlap (when compiled selectively at least).16:41
direc85[m]I looked for pcre>pcre2 updates, and found this: It looks like it's not just a version bump.16:45
Ketonephros: afaik, it depends on how you install the new package16:50
nephrosdirec85[m]: thanks, but pcre and pcre2 are indeed two different things. And I'm plaing with a pcre2 -> pcre2 update.18:03
direc85[m]Ah, didn't catch that one.18:03
nephrosKeto: that I read, so I expected installing pcre2 (the one built from the Jolla repo) to *remove* an installed libpcre2-8-0 (subpackage from the Chum variant).18:04
nephrosBut it doesn't. Both packages remain installed.18:04
malnephros: a bit problematic situation, if we would be sure that everyone update that before 4.6.0 release then things would be fine but if not then some people might have issues19:11
nephrosmal: I try ;) The good thing is, as far as Chum is concerned there is only one thing that would pull in that library (lnav), and that's kind of a low-interest program.19:35
nephrosI'll try what happens If I do a Obsoletes+Conflicts version of one version lower than the Jolla one, in the hopes that will "clean up" the package so the Jolla one can then update it.19:36
nephrosAh - but we have the "vendor" issue.19:37
nephrosWill a Jolla OS update force changing vendors? I guess it will not.19:37
nephrosAh! It's not even coming from Chum! it's openrepos-ade, they have a higher version packaged!19:54
nephrosMy Obsoletes: in chum are working as expected, but if openrepos-ade is installed it never comes to play as their version is higher than both Jollas and the one in Chum19:56
malwhich version does it have?20:10
mal10.43 probably20:11
malI could update the one in sfos repos and add there Obsoletes libpcre220:14
nephrosmal: Would work, for now ;) You need to obsolete four package names:
nephros... although the openrepos-ade one only has libpcre2-8-0 AFAICS.20:18
ademal: I am more than happy to remove my libpcre2 packages in favor of an offical sfos version21:54
adebut it won't help for an already released newer version I guess21:58
malade: I will update the version in sfos git to 10.43 and make those obsolete the other versions, then you could have those in your repo and hopefully those would get replaced properly at 4.6.0 release21:59
malI can test such a replacement on my devel device if I install your pcre2 packages and the update from devel repos and see if those get replaced correctly22:00
adethanks, as soon is 4.6.0 is released I will remove my pcre repo anyway now I know Jolla is providing this.22:02
*** amccarthy is now known as Guest133122:19
*** amccarthy_ is now known as amccarthy22:19

Generated by 2.17.1 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!