On 08.04.2013, at 22:52, Drew Gibson <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to understand more about the "3rd party app" process but I have been > experiencing the same level of frustration as Christian Reiner (though he is > much more polite!)
Thanks you. Being polite is a requirement in this community. > > In troubleshooting after updating to 5.0.x, I bypassed the version check only > to have installs fail because the app was marked as "shipped". The odd thing > is that the app WAS "shipped" in the RPM from opensuse. By passing the > "shipped" check lead to failure because the app was "already installed" (of > course it was, it was shipped with the RPM!!!) > > Would it not be better to "hide" apps that do not meet requirements rather > than failure after attempting install? > > One more thing, can anyone explain why "required" parameter is the MAX > version and not, as I would expect, MIN version? Which app are you talking about? Frank > regards, > > Drew > > > Thomas Müller wrote: >> What about distinguishing the apps by installation source? >> shipped and shopped (<- stupid name I know ;-) ) >> >> Tom >> >> >>> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Christian >>>>> Reiner<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> sorry if I raise that issue again - but frankly I get annoyed with that >>>>> issue: >>>>> >>>>> Again some apps cannot be installed by just 'activating' them inside the >>>>> 'apps' section of an ownCloud-5.0.3 installation. The result is the >>>>> unfamous: >>>>> "the app cannot be installed because it is not compatible with this >>>>> version of >>>>> ownCloud". >>>>> >>>>> 1.) this is just not true. >>>>> 2.) the check that leads to this statement does not make sense. >>>>> 3.) this issue has existed for quite some time now, why is it not fixed? >>>>> >>>>> I do understand that this issue is not a direct problem for the "core >>>>> apps" >>>>> developed and bundled by the core team. But if ownCloud really is meant to >>>>> attract a community of developers coding what is called "3rd party apps" >>>>> (btw: >>>>> why "3rd"?), then such issues must be fixed. The issue has been addressed >>>>> many >>>>> many times before and it is documented in the issue tracker. >>>>> I also do understand that it makes sense to have some means to block "old" >>>>> apps that are really not compatible with newer versions of ownCloud, since >>>>> these might crash the ownCloud core. Although in my eyes this is a >>>>> shortcomming of the plugin architecture ownCloud implements for apps, >>>>> this is >>>>> another issue. The problem at hand is simply the version control check >>>>> done - >>>>> which blocks many apps from being installed without any reason. >>>>> >>>>> I am getting more and more frustrated having to adapt the appinfo/info.xml >>>>> file for apps every two weeks or so to prevent that apps are being blocked >>>>> again. >>>>> - Why is there no announcement that such thing is required? Are 3rd party >>>>> app >>>>> developers meant to sniff that from thin air? >>>>> - Why is a change required anyway? I just stumbled over an app (the >>>>> imprint >>>>> app) that could be installed fine inside OC-5.0.0. Now with OC-5.0.3 it is >>>>> blocked again. Why? Probably there is a reason why something was changed >>>>> again, but that means a change of the app API between two minor versions - >>>>> that is something one does not do. With good reasons. Especially not >>>>> without >>>>> taking care that some backwards compatibility exists. >>>>> >>>>> Christian Reiner (arkascha) >>>>> [ Probably cooled down again in a few hours ] >>>>> >>>>> PS: and no personal offense meant, really not. >>>>> I just try to bring that issue up so that it is recognized as an urgent >>>>> issue. >>>>> _______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Owncloud mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud _______________________________________________ Owncloud mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud
