Hi all,
Sorry I never closed the loop on this. I released xfce4-dev-tools 4.18.1 on
Tuesday, which contains the new macros the more recent releases of
xfce4-terminal and xfce4-notifyd are depending on. And just now I released
xfce4-notifyd 0.9.3, which fixes a few issues and drops the xdt-autogen
requirement back down to 4.18.1. Looks like there's no new xfce4-terminal
release with the requirement dropped, but packagers can certainly carry a
one-line patch to autogen.sh if they want until it does.
And note, as I believe Gaël pointed out, the X.(odd).Z versioning scheme
indicating development releases only applies to the core Xfce components. The
other apps, plugins, etc. don't necessarily follow that. xfce4-notifyd, for
example, doesn't do development releases at all; all releases are considered
'stable' (I should probably just do 1.0.0 one of these days, heh).
And also note that our release manager automatically prepends "this is a
development release" to release announcements for any X.(odd).Z release
version, even if the component doesn't follow that scheme. I usually remember
to delete that text before approving the announcement, but sometimes I (and I
imagine others) might forget to do that.
-b
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023, at 12:40, Brian Tarricone wrote:
> Created https://gitlab.xfce.org/xfce/xfce4-dev-tools/-/merge_requests/91
>
> Also noticed we didn't even have a 4.18 branch for xfce4-dev-tools, so I
> pushed that from the 4.18.0 tag. And it looks like there are a few bugfixes
> in master since 4.18.0 that we might want to put in the 4.18 series as well.
> After we get this done I'll collect them and create a new PR for those.
>
> -b
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023, at 12:30, Brian Tarricone wrote:
>> Ok, sounds good, thanks for the feedback, everyone.
>>
>> Alex, totally get you're uncomfortable with adding new stuff to the stable
>> series, but these are isolated additions, not changes to existing macros or
>> functionality, so I think the risk should be very low. And any app not
>> using them shouldn't be affected at all.
>>
>> I'll prepare a 4.18 backport PR for the macros, and assuming everyone is ok
>> with it, we can get a 4.18 release out.
>>
>> Thanks all!
>>
>> -brian
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023, at 12:11, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> +1 vote for option 2, this is an exceptional situation and just adding
>>> those macros shouldn't cause any problem if I understood it right.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andre Miranda
>>>
>>> Oct 16, 2023, 13:57 by [email protected]:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> As theses are new macros, we can make an exception and backports them to
>>>> xdt 4.18. Don't forget to bump minimal xdt versions in autogen :)
>>>> Yes, others distros haven't noticed the problem because they don't re run
>>>> autoreconf.
>>>>
>>>> Romain,
>>>>
>>>> Le 16 octobre 2023 11:31:17 GMT+02:00, "Gaël Bonithon"
>>>> <[email protected]> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd vote for 2): I don't think there's much risk either and we've been
>>>>> testing these macros for a while now with xfdesktop, xfce4-notifyd and
>>>>> more recently xfce4-panel, at least.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Gaël
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------- Original Message -------
>>>>> On Monday, October 16th, 2023 at 5:58 AM, Alex <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > thanks for the forward Brian! As well added Skunnyk and Andre.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Personally I would go for the more conservative 1) to prevent possible
>>>>> > further trouble with them on the stable branch ... maybe with a comment
>>>>> > to swap them out for the xfce-4.20 official macros, once xfce4.20 is
>>>>> > released.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Though I did not look into the Makros in detail ... if you are sure
>>>>> > that 2) will be save / will not have side effects, it as well would be
>>>>> > fine with it.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Cheers, Alex
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Am 16.10.23 um 03:51 schrieb Brian Tarricone:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Gah, sorry about that, I didn't even think of the fact that distros
>>>>> > > would need the newer 4.19 dev-tools package for packaging.>> CC'd
>>>>> > > Alex; Alex, for some more context (some of it got snipped): we've
>>>>> > > started depending on some macros I added to xfce4-dev-tools in the
>>>>> > > 4.19.x series (the XDT_CHECK_OPTIONAL_FEATURE stuff), but in stable
>>>>> > > versions of things (xfce4-terminal, xfce4-notifyd). Turns out that's
>>>>> > > making things difficult for packagers.>> So I think we have two good
>>>>> > > options:>> 1) We can put the new m4 macros in a .m4 file, prefix them
>>>>> > > with something else so they don't conflict, and copy it into each
>>>>> > > project that uses them and wants to do stable releases for now. Then
>>>>> > > those modules can run against xfce4-dev-tools 4.18 again.>> 2) We can
>>>>> > > backport the new macros to the 4.18 branch of xfce4-dev-tools. Since
>>>>> > > they're just additions, I don't think there's much risk of
>>>>> > > problems.>> Ok ok, there's also 3) go back to manually listing out
>>>>> > > the dependencies in each configure.ac and gating X11/Wayland support
>>>>> > > on them. But I don't feel like doing that ;)>> Gaël, Alex, what do
>>>>> > > you think? Feel free to CC anyone else who should weigh in.
>>>>> > > Personally I think #2 is the easiest, especially as more non-core
>>>>> > > modules want to support Wayland and need compile-time support for it,
>>>>> > > but not sure putting new macros in the stable series of
>>>>> > > xfce4-dev-tools is ok to do.>> -brian>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2023, at
>>>>> > > 15:11, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On Sun, 2023-10-15 at 21:08 +0000, Gaël Bonithon wrote:
>>>>> > > >>>> We have the same issue for xfce4-notifyd but then I assumed 0.9
>>>>> > > >>>> was the
>>>>> > > >>>> development branch leading to a 0.10 release for Xfce 4.20. So
>>>>> > > >>>> we pushed
>>>>> > > >>>> it to
>>>>> > > >>>> experimental without too much fuss.
>>>>> > > >>>
>>>>> > > >>> Xfce4-notifyd 0.9.x are not dev versions as far as I know.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Well that doesn't change the fact that we can't upload it to unstable
>>>>> > > now :)
>>>>> > > >>>
>>>>> > > >>>> Well, if you have it and it's sensible, yes sure.
>>>>> > > >>>
>>>>> > > >>> See the attached patch. Not all XDT_CHECK_OPTIONAL_FEATURE
>>>>> > > >>> features are
>>>>> > > >>> reproduced, but it should be enough. And since it has a limited
>>>>> > > >>> impact, it
>>>>> > > >>> should continue to apply until Xfce 4.20.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Thanks, I'll try that and report back (also, no need to encrypt
>>>>> > > direct mail,
>>>>> > > since it's sent in cleartext to a mailing list anyway).
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Regards,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>
>>
>
