Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:48 AM, wrote: > Whew, it's done! I wound up doing a minimal number of workarounds: > > * Held colord at a previous version > * Built PackageKit without Vala support > * Built totem without plugin support > > This is a normal amount of workarounds.

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

Whew, it's done! I wound up doing a minimal number of workarounds: * Held colord at a previous version * Built PackageKit without Vala support * Built totem without plugin support This is a normal amount of workarounds. There's always a few hacks we need to do to get everything building. So in

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: I can do this tomorrow, today I have family things to sort today. Thanks to everybody offering PRs for the colord issues, I've merged all of them and I think we're in good shape now. Yeah that's fine, enjoy your

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On 13 August 2017 at 15:35, wrote: > Now if I can get a new colord tarball, I think this might work. I can do this tomorrow, today I have family things to sort today. Thanks to everybody offering PRs for the colord issues, I've merged all of them and I think we're in good

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

Thanks a bunch. Ernestas! Now if I can get a new colord tarball, I think this might work. I can disable vala support in PackageKit because vala ships its own PackageKit vapi, but that wasn't an option for colord Michael ___ desktop-devel-list

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Sat, 2017-08-12 at 17:47 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Bastien Nocera > wrote: > > What usually happened in the past was that the older version was > > used > > when such a problem happened, which would hopefully have > > streamlined

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Sat, 2017-08-12 at 15:40 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > Hi developers, > > I'm still struggling to get buildable release modulesets for > 3.25.90. > As you know, tarballs for that release were due Monday and the > release > was due Wednesday, but it's Saturday now and I haven't

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: What usually happened in the past was that the older version was used when such a problem happened, which would hopefully have streamlined the process somewhat ("I used this old version because that new one...). Yes.

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Sat, 2017-08-12 at 15:40 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > Hi developers, > > I'm still struggling to get buildable release modulesets for > 3.25.90. > As you know, tarballs for that release were due Monday and the > release > was due Wednesday, but it's Saturday now and I haven't

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:40 PM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: [3] I've uploaded tentative jhbuild modulesets [3] for smoketesting, so you can build with the exact same tarball versions and build flags that we release. Sigh, Geary Here they are:

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

Hi developers, I'm still struggling to get buildable release modulesets for 3.25.90. As you know, tarballs for that release were due Monday and the release was due Wednesday, but it's Saturday now and I haven't delivered it yet. Normally I spend about one day working on a release and it's not

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:25 PM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: Unfortunately I don't see anything wrong with the generated enums files. It turned out those are actually distributed in the PackageKit tarball, which was briefly a subject of suspicion since there are no problems when building from

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

Can you attach your two versions of the .vapi? On Ubuntu 17.10 they are almost identical and would compile against either one. On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 at 10:06 wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:45 PM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > > OK, I'm done sending emails. If you don't

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:45 PM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: OK, I'm done sending emails. If you don't have a mail from me, then your module is probably fine. Michael Another update. Thanks to lots of help from lots of people, I'm down to just three known build failures. (There might be

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: Hi, Unfortunately 3.25.90 is going to be delayed indefinitely until all the tarballs build for me. It hasn't been going well so far. As I mentioned last week, there are a much higher number of failures than usual due to the meson