Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: REVERT feat(udev): add Sunshine udev rules (fix #119) #139

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

bsherman
Copy link
Contributor

This reverts commit 4d0e776.

/usr/lib/udev/rules.d/85-sunshine.rules conflicts with the sunshine RPM itself, preventing the install of that package.

I don't think the intent of this PR was to prevent users from using the sunshine RPM.

@ArtikusHG - FYI - I think we need to improve on this.

This reverts commit 4d0e776.

/usr/lib/udev/rules.d/85-sunshine.rules conflicts with the sunshine
RPM itself, preventing the install of that package.

I don't think the intent of this PR was to prevent users from using the
sunshine RPM.
@bsherman bsherman requested a review from a team October 24, 2023 01:37
@bsherman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Discord thread documenting the problem: https://discord.com/channels/1072614816579063828/1072617059265032342/1166181845264773240

Hey folks, I've been using sunshine as a layered package so I can use the systemd scripts to automatically start it on login.
This PR seems to be causing me a problem: #138
When I update I now get the folloing
error: Checkout sunshine-0.20.0-1.x86_64: Hardlinking 4e/843b6d65bd7666b282e019d1cd9ce8a8a5efc72f8be9ebc58080bcca6344f4.file to 85-sunshine.rules: File exists

Is my only solution to switch to the flatpack in order to update my system?

@RedTopper
Copy link

Thanks @bsherman for opening the report for me!

As an additional datapoint, it is not possible to remove the layered sunshine package, update, then re-layer. It produces the same error.

My current use-case for the RPM is to use the systemd rules to start and stop the service. I could likely re-work to use the flatpak instead, but it seems odd to make that the only option.

@bsherman bsherman marked this pull request as draft October 24, 2023 02:06
@bsherman
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm working on a better solution than a simple revert.

@bsherman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Better solution: #140

@bsherman bsherman closed this Oct 24, 2023
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