#1176 closed defect (fixed)
Upgrade activities that were installed from bundles
| Reported by: | alsroot | Owned by: | tomeu |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Unspecified by Maintainer | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Sugar | Version: | 0.84.x |
| Severity: | Unspecified | Keywords: | r+ |
| Cc: | Distribution/OS: | Unspecified | |
| Bug Status: | Unconfirmed |
Description
This patch intended only for 0.84
Attachments (1)
Change History (9)
Changed 14 years ago by alsroot
comment:1 Changed 14 years ago by alsroot
- Cc r? removed
- Keywords r? added
comment:2 follow-up: ↓ 3 Changed 14 years ago by sascha_silbe
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 14 years ago by alsroot
Replying to sascha_silbe:
Looks like a dupe of #1042.
yup, thats why thats patch only for 0.84, in 0.86 it could be fixed in other way
comment:4 Changed 14 years ago by tomeu
- Keywords r! added; r? removed
How does this patch helps it? AFAICS the problem is that we are raising AlreadyInstalledException when updating, cannot see what has to do where the existing bundle was installed.
comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 14 years ago by alsroot
in existed 0.84 code AlreadyInstalledException will be raised in any case(if we have the same bundle_id despite of the current version)
attached patch do that only for preinstalled(not in ~/Activities) activities, for .xo activities it just pass though and compare versions to raise AlreadyInstalledException
comment:6 Changed 14 years ago by alsroot
- Milestone changed from Unspecified by Release Team to 0.84
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 14 years ago by tomeu
- Keywords r+ added; r! removed
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
Replying to alsroot:
in existed 0.84 code AlreadyInstalledException will be raised in any case(if we have the same bundle_id despite of the current version)
attached patch do that only for preinstalled(not in ~/Activities) activities, for .xo activities it just pass though and compare versions to raise AlreadyInstalledException
ok, got it now, thanks. Wish the naming of those funcs was clearer, but as this is only for 0.84...
Looks like a dupe of #1042.