Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 713048 - mate-extra/mate-power-manager: Drop dependency on gnome-base/libgnome-keyring
Summary: mate-extra/mate-power-manager: Drop dependency on gnome-base/libgnome-keyring
Status: IN_PROGRESS
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo MATE Desktop
URL: https://github.com/mate-desktop/mate-...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 713010
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2020-03-17 19:25 UTC by Matt Turner
Modified: 2020-08-07 03:18 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Matt Turner gentoo-dev 2020-03-17 19:25:13 UTC
$URL is the unresolved upstream issue.
Comment 1 Larry the Git Cow gentoo-dev 2020-08-03 00:10:41 UTC
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s):

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=3c138d61b2d48824e7626dd92a98269e065babed

commit 3c138d61b2d48824e7626dd92a98269e065babed
Author:     Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
AuthorDate: 2020-08-03 00:06:24 +0000
Commit:     Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
CommitDate: 2020-08-03 00:07:52 +0000

    mate-extra/mate-power-manager: Disable libgnome-keyring support
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/713048
    Signed-off-by: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>

 .../mate-power-manager-1.24.1-r2.ebuild            | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
Comment 2 Adam Feldman gentoo-dev 2020-08-03 13:10:04 UTC
Can you revert this please? I'm just in the midst of porting to llibsecret, and I'd really rather not have a screwy merge.

https://github.com/mate-desktop/mate-power-manager/pull/351
Comment 3 Matt Turner gentoo-dev 2020-08-03 16:44:32 UTC
Oh, I'm happy to hear that.

Feel free to revert it when you're ready to replace it with something. Unless, you're saying you're unsure about git and want me to do it?

I'm not clear on how the revert would help you, in any case. If you're planning to apply your patches on a new revision bump, you would want the commit that disables gnome-keyring.
Comment 4 Adam Feldman gentoo-dev 2020-08-03 18:17:01 UTC
(In reply to Matt Turner from comment #3)
> Oh, I'm happy to hear that.
> 
> Feel free to revert it when you're ready to replace it with something.
> Unless, you're saying you're unsure about git and want me to do it?
> 
> I'm not clear on how the revert would help you, in any case. If you're
> planning to apply your patches on a new revision bump, you would want the
> commit that disables gnome-keyring.

Already have staged my libsecret patch on the same revision that your commit added.  Just figured it'd make my life a little simpler when I rebase.  I made the mistake of pulling earlier with edits to my packages by another dev and while I am capable of sorting through it, I'd prefer to just work on my packages without headache, if you know what I mean XD
Comment 5 Matt Turner gentoo-dev 2020-08-03 18:21:39 UTC
(In reply to Adam Feldman from comment #4)
> Already have staged my libsecret patch on the same revision that your commit
> added.  Just figured it'd make my life a little simpler when I rebase.  I
> made the mistake of pulling earlier with edits to my packages by another dev
> and while I am capable of sorting through it, I'd prefer to just work on my
> packages without headache, if you know what I mean XD

If you don't know how to deal with rebase conflicts, just say so :)

Also, was it really just a coincidence that my commit preceded your upstream PR by a few hours after months of nothing happening?
Comment 6 Adam Feldman gentoo-dev 2020-08-03 19:56:00 UTC
(In reply to Matt Turner from comment #5)
> (In reply to Adam Feldman from comment #4)
> > Already have staged my libsecret patch on the same revision that your commit
> > added.  Just figured it'd make my life a little simpler when I rebase.  I
> > made the mistake of pulling earlier with edits to my packages by another dev
> > and while I am capable of sorting through it, I'd prefer to just work on my
> > packages without headache, if you know what I mean XD
> 
> If you don't know how to deal with rebase conflicts, just say so :)
> 
> Also, was it really just a coincidence that my commit preceded your upstream
> PR by a few hours after months of nothing happening?

Not so much that I don't know how... More that I'd rather not deal with them when there is no reason to.

As far as coincidences... Well... You can pretty clearly see I was working on MATE, as evidenced by posts on the -dev ML, which precede your commits.  I'd been working on it for the days leading up to that.  We can talk more about things in private, but clearly, my efforts weren't spurned on by your commit.
Comment 7 Larry the Git Cow gentoo-dev 2020-08-07 03:18:13 UTC
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s):

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=ba6a0d6ed88d266fddb8a9ac1f72786e82dbe487

commit ba6a0d6ed88d266fddb8a9ac1f72786e82dbe487
Author:     Adam Feldman <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org>
AuthorDate: 2020-08-04 19:26:18 +0000
Commit:     Adam Feldman <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org>
CommitDate: 2020-08-07 03:17:35 +0000

    mate-extra/mate-power-manager: Add libsecret support
    
    Fix edit of 418634dd86a16a7e885cd67637ed6f7a6010a60d
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/713048
    Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.103, Repoman-2.3.23
    Signed-off-by: Adam Feldman <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org>

 .../mate-power-manager-1.24.1-libsecret.patch      | 287 +++++++++++++++++++++
 .../mate-power-manager-1.24.1-r2.ebuild            |  20 +-
 mate-extra/mate-power-manager/metadata.xml         |   1 +
 3 files changed, 300 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)