Bug 1467349 - deja-dup-nautilus not installed when installing deja-dup
Summary: deja-dup-nautilus not installed when installing deja-dup
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: deja-dup
Version: 26
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Gwyn Ciesla
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-07-03 13:19 UTC by mlaverdiere
Modified: 2017-08-20 18:25 UTC (History)
13 users (show)

Fixed In Version: deja-dup-35.3-2.fc26
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-08-20 18:25:52 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description mlaverdiere 2017-07-03 13:19:47 UTC
When installing deja-dup (through gnome-software), the package deja-dup-nautilus is not installed, but it probably should, as the function provided by this package (specific file recovery through File/Nautilus) is intended to be a function of deja-dup (as it is referred to in the overview panel, when the user has the choice of a complete recovery or a specific file recovery).

See the question (and answer) related to this issue:  https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/9483/how-to-restore-a-file-from-a-deja-dup-backup-quickly/

I understand that the package deja-dup-nautilus may not be useful of a KDE, XFCE, etc. user, but since it is primarily a GNOME utility, it should be installed as intended for a complete integration within GNOME.

Comment 1 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-08-08 15:05:41 UTC
This would pull in a lot of otherwise unnecessary software for non-GNOME spins.  I think this is better addressed at the spin level.

Comment 2 Rex Dieter 2017-08-08 22:46:31 UTC
Or use rich dependencies, perhaps deja-dup-nautilus could grow something like:

Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and nautilus)

ie, so if base deja-dup pkg and nautilus are installed, then -nautilus subpkg would get pulled into the transaction by default too.

Comment 3 Michael Terry 2017-08-08 23:28:50 UTC
Upstream checking in here. With my upstream hat on, I'd say yes, the nautilus plugin is a key part. It's the only UI-based way to restore specific or missing files.

With my Ubuntu developer hat on, I'd recommend just shipping the plugin on disk as part of the main package but don't add any new dependencies. If the user has nautilus, it will be picked up. If they don't, no harm. That's what we do in Ubuntu.

Comment 4 Rex Dieter 2017-08-09 01:28:21 UTC
rpm's autoreq/autoprov will likely add additional dependencies, I see at least:

rpm -qR deja-dup-nautilus
...
libnautilus-extension.so.1()(64bit)

packager can consider disabling the autoreq behavior, though I'm not sure if that's the best course here.

Comment 5 Rex Dieter 2017-08-09 01:29:00 UTC
Re-assigning back to deja-dup, that's (imo) the best place to address this per for last few comments.

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-08-09 14:41:44 UTC
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #2)
> Or use rich dependencies, perhaps deja-dup-nautilus could grow something
> like:
> 
> Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and nautilus)
> 
> ie, so if base deja-dup pkg and nautilus are installed, then -nautilus
> subpkg would get pulled into the transaction by default too.

This seems the most rational to me, I'll get out an update for this.  Thanks!

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-08-13 04:03:56 UTC
deja-dup-35.3-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-865cebcd5e

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2017-08-20 18:25:52 UTC
deja-dup-35.3-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.