[Sugar-devel] Bug 1240354 - SoaS live x86_64 20150706 does not login from live system user

[Jerry Vonau]

> On September 3, 2015 at 12:58 PM Martin Abente
> <martin.abente.lahaye at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Jerry Vonau <me at jvonau.ca> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > > On September 3, 2015 at 11:38 AM Martin Abente
> > > <martin.abente.lahaye at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > I rebuilt 0.106.0 packages from fc23 source rpms, for fc22 x86_64.
> >
> > So did I using my copr account, what a great tool to build rpms with,
> > perhaps SL should go back to using it.[1] Easy for testers to enable
> > with
> > dnf.
> >
> > > It works
> > > fine, so it definitely not something with Sugar. It makes sense since
> > > nothing changed in SugarExt.
> > >
> > > Now, this might be something with fc23, but is it on build time or
> > > run
> > > time? Ideas? Maybe something related to gobject instrospection?
> > >
> >
> > Runtime in F23, otherwise the F23 rpm would not been built.
> >
> 
> Not necessarily, e.g. there could be something wrong happening while
> generating the gobject introspection files. Something wrong in the sense
> that the content is not generated "properly", and does not necessarily
> triggers a "compilation error".
> 

Agreed, looking for what changed is a pain.

> In fact, I think this might be the case: I installed the 0.106.0 packages
> I
> built for fc22 on a fresh fc23 system and sugar works fine.
> 

Interesting, what is the "fresh system"? Are you selecting sugar at the
login manager or using sugar-runner?

There could be dependencies that are already met by the installed system,
that would mask an undeclared dependency in the sugar rpms. Kind of
re-enforces what I'm thinking, some Build|Requires moved to a sub-package
for a sugar dependency or there is a new unaccounted sugar dependency.

> Ideas? I suspect on the gobject introspection bindings generation, but
> can't think of what exactly it could be.
> 
Wouldn't the recent addition of importing configparser require the
python-configparser rpm to be declared as Required, not relying on to be
already present? Might explain your observations with a different desktop.

Jerry