gnome-extra/policykit-gnome-0.9.2 seems not working with new policykit-0.92. After checking in http://hal.freedesktop.org/releases/, there is a polkit-gnome-0.92.tar.bz2 tarball which must be the one compatible. Is it possible to have it bumped ? Thanks :)
The problem goes deeper and a new policykit-gnome won't solve it alone. Policykit 0.92 is API incompatible with older releases, so practically all packages with Policykit-support are broken now and need to be adapted. See the current discussion on GNOME's desktop-devel-list. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2009-June/msg00069.html So in my opinion there are two possibilities: 1) Hard mask 0.92, patch all packages and unmask them all at the same time 2) Slot 0.92 and depend on it accordingly. maybe the easiest solution, but not unproblematic to the users (as they practially will have two different places to set policies) Or maybe I'm just missing some prior discussion about this, if yes: Sorry about the noise ;)
This link is listing some changes for gnome-policykit (and confirming the version I pointed is the good one) : http://www.mail-archive.com/polkit-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg00093.html @Andreas: you are right, polkit-0.92 and every package needing it should be p.masked. Surely, every packages needing it should also be p.masked but I don't know if it worth a forced slot with two places for policies. It will probably depend on the time needed to get all packages moving to the new API. It will probably be needed if some important package haven't move when packagekit-0.92 will have to be unmasked. Anyway, I'm not a gnome team member, my words are not important. I just need gnome-policykit-0.92 in the tree and as long as it's p.masked, it's not painfull ;)
I think the proper and better alternative should be mask polkit-0.92 and all packages which depend upon it directly and which may break due to ABI changes. Theorically if the new version of gnome-policykit has changed to work with polkit-0.92 only his implement has changed and not his ABI (gnome-policykit), but need to be confirmed... However in the case where gnome-polkit may break some packages in tree , i think it should be masked too. @herd: What do you think about it ?
(In reply to comment #3) > @herd: What do you think about it ? > I think PK 0.92 shouldn't have been added to the tree at all, since it's a pre-release version, and the only other distro to add it to their repos is Fedora Rawhide (which on the same level as the gnome overlay). Till 1.0 is out[1], and everything is ported (not likely before 2.28), PK should stay masked.
(In reply to comment #4) > Till 1.0 is out[1], and everything is ported (not likely before 2.28), PK > should stay masked. > Oops, forgot the reference: 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PolicyKitOne
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > @herd: What do you think about it ? > > > > I think PK 0.92 shouldn't have been added to the tree at all, since it's a > pre-release version, and the only other distro to add it to their repos is > Fedora Rawhide (which on the same level as the gnome overlay). > > Till 1.0 is out[1], and everything is ported (not likely before 2.28), PK > should stay masked. > Have it in the tree masked is not so bad. At least, may be adding it to the gnome overlay. It's better than nothing. If you do so, can you inform users here ? Thanks :)
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > @herd: What do you think about it ? > > > > > > > I think PK 0.92 shouldn't have been added to the tree at all, since it's a > > pre-release version, and the only other distro to add it to their repos is > > Fedora Rawhide (which on the same level as the gnome overlay). > > > > Till 1.0 is out[1], and everything is ported (not likely before 2.28), PK > > should stay masked. > > > > Have it in the tree masked is not so bad. At least, may be adding it to the > gnome overlay. It's better than nothing. > > If you do so, can you inform users here ? > > Thanks :) > Yeah but PolicyKit is maintained by freedesktop herd not just by gnome, and usually we avoid to import a dev cycle already into the tree (gnome overlay policy). The worst case for us could be a user would be able to unmask it... in this case any reverse dependencies works with the new ABI... it's a problem.
> Yeah but PolicyKit is maintained by freedesktop herd not just by gnome, and > usually we avoid to import a dev cycle already into the tree (gnome overlay > policy). Damnit totally wrong... I need a coffee sorry ^^ However the second item is still true.
Sorry for sticking my nose into other people's business, but since I still had an unmask-entry for policykit (for testing 0.9) I got policykit-0.92 on the next world update. Now, fedora has a list of packages which need porting here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PolicyKitOne I have a policykit-gnome version bump ready in my dev-overlay, as well as a patched gnome-applets (patch taken from fedora) and I'm most likely going to add ebuilds for all the other apps as well.
(In reply to comment #9) > I have a policykit-gnome version bump ready in my dev-overlay, as well as a > patched gnome-applets (patch taken from fedora) and I'm most likely going to > add ebuilds for all the other apps as well. > If you have a policykit-gnome version bump it should be pushed to the tree or the the gnome overlay. It's a shame to keep such a treasure :)
Tiziano, can you attach the ebuild here ?
*** Bug 277135 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 269850 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Will be handled at the same time as policykit-0.92, no need for extra bug. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 274411 ***
