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

[Peter Robinson]

>> > > 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?

Fedora 23, either gdm (from an upgraded netbook) or lightdm for the
clean built LiveCD

> 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.

Tha't's possibly if there was some new dep that wasn't advertised in
the changes.

>> 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.

Installing that doesn't make any difference to the crash, is it
needed? I never saw anything in any of the release notes, not that
there really were with any of the dev cycle releases.

http://paste.fedoraproject.org/263319/31103314/