Skip to content

Conversation

@gc-user
Copy link
Contributor

@gc-user gc-user commented Sep 28, 2025

Testing the changes

  • I tested the changes in this PR: briefly

Local build testing

  • I built this PR locally for my native architecture, (x86_64)

@oreo639
Copy link
Member

oreo639 commented Sep 29, 2025

The documentation check failures seems to be an upstream issue (for some reason gi-docgen prefixes its messages with WARNING: but then returns as an error, which is kinda confusing: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gi-docgen/-/blob/main/gidocgen/gdcheck.py?ref_type=heads#L415-418).
Those dock check failures should probably be reported upstream.

@gc-user
Copy link
Contributor Author

gc-user commented Sep 29, 2025

The documentation check failures seems to be an upstream issue

Yeah, maybe better to wait until upstream is fixed.

@gc-user
Copy link
Contributor Author

gc-user commented Sep 29, 2025

I made the proposed change to the template, just to have it fixed. But I am still totally ok with closing this PR as well.

(And, of course, once again, I forgot to change the revision before pushing..., sorry for that. I'm using "revision=0" locally so that the package gets "updated" once the official void package is available.)

@oreo639
Copy link
Member

oreo639 commented Sep 29, 2025

Yeah, maybe better to wait until upstream is fixed.

It's a minor issue (just documentation), I can make an issue on the gitlab later.

Also the commits need to be squashed (it should be one commit per package), you can do:

git reset HEAD~2
git commit --amend

@gc-user
Copy link
Contributor Author

gc-user commented Sep 29, 2025

Also the commits need to be squashed...

Like so?
I set the head back to before my first commit (essentially HEAD~3), made the lastest template version a new commit and force-pushed it to remote.

@oreo639
Copy link
Member

oreo639 commented Sep 29, 2025

Like so?

Yes.

@gc-user
Copy link
Contributor Author

gc-user commented Sep 29, 2025

Thank you for your help!

Usually I delete the branch locally and start fresh or I do reset with "--hard" (because that's how I "learned" it from someone), so this time without it, the template wasn't reset - a nice experience. :-)

@oreo639
Copy link
Member

oreo639 commented Oct 13, 2025

Done, sorry for the delay: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/merge_requests/9033.patch

@oreo639
Copy link
Member

oreo639 commented Oct 13, 2025

Seems this breaks searching in the app chooser (e.g. in nautilus): https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/issues/7770

@gc-user
Copy link
Contributor Author

gc-user commented Oct 13, 2025

Seems this breaks searching in the app chooser (e.g. in nautilus): https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/issues/7770

I'm on xfce. "Open with" on Thunar works fine to me. Probably a nautilus thing.

As this bug is now known, better wait for a fixed nautilus release before updating gtk4...

So, whatever you think of doing to this PR is fine with me.

@oreo639
Copy link
Member

oreo639 commented Oct 13, 2025

I'm on xfce. "Open with" on Thunar works fine to me

Thunar uses gtk3.

@gc-user
Copy link
Contributor Author

gc-user commented Oct 13, 2025

Thunar uses gtk3.

Oh, ok. Probably because of the same version number I assumed xfce and thus Thunar would use gtk4 already... my bad.

Co-authored-by: oreo639 <oreo6391@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants