Trying to update metadata on kobo gives the below warning (I was not able to have it in English by launching LC_ALL=C calibre sorry), saying more or less that the kobo firmware is updated to a new version that is unknown in calibre. <<calibre, version 2.20.0 AVVISO: Non riuscito: La versione del database di Kobo non è supportata - Vedi i dettagli Il tuo Kobo usa una versione aggiornata del firmware/database. Poiché calibre non è a conoscenza di tale aggiornamento, la modifica del database è disabilitata, per evitare danneggiamenti. Puoi ancora inviare libri al tuo Kobo con calibre, ma l'eliminazione dei libri e la gestione delle raccolte sono disabilitate. Se intendi sperimentare e sai come ripristinare le impostazioni di fabbrica di Kobo, puoi ignorare questo controllo facendo clic con il tasto destro sull'icona del dispositivo in calibre, selezionando "Configura questo dispositivo" e quindi l'opzione "Prova a supportare un firmware più recente". Questa operazione potrebbe richiedere il ripristino delle impostazioni di fabbrica del tuo Kobo. Device database version: 125. Device firmware version: (3, 19, 5761)>> I tried backporting calibre on cauldron and seem not to be affected. (btw a new version is available on calibre site)
(In reply to Angelo Naselli from comment #0) > Trying to update metadata on kobo gives the below warning (I was not able to > have it in English by launching LC_ALL=C calibre sorry), Maybe "LANGUAGE=en calibre" does the trick?
CC: (none) => marja11Assignee: bugsquad => tarakbumba
Hi Angelo. I have a Kobo Touch e-reader too and Kobo updated firmware to 3.19.5761 recently. Calibre in cauldron (2.51.0) is a up-to-date version which supports this firmware but due to our updates policy i can not update to our mga5 version. Calibre is a highly sophisticated software and new versions released almost every Fridays. It includes both bugfixes and new features. Every week there are huge amount of changes in the source code.It is almost impossible to digging bugfix commits in github and backporting to our mga5 one for me. It is very very time consuming work. I may backport calibre but there is lack of testers in QA team who uses calibre or had a e-book/e-reader. A backport is still sitting in bacports_testing rep. See bug #17362 May be, just may be we should review our updates policy for Calibre or completely drop it...
Isn't the updates policy less tight, now? Otoh, if there are no testers with the needed hw to test the backport, having it in updates_testing won't help :-( @ Rémi, Dave WDYT?
CC: (none) => davidwhodgins, rverschelde
Well in such a case a backport sounds like a good solution. Even if nobody can test the specific features in the QA team, the backport could be validated anyway as long as it's self-contained and seems to work OK.
(In reply to Marja van Waes from comment #3) > Isn't the updates policy less tight, now? > > Otoh, if there are no testers with the needed hw to test the backport, > having it in updates_testing won't help :-( > > @ Rémi, Dave > > WDYT? You' re right as always. (In reply to Rémi Verschelde from comment #4) > Well in such a case a backport sounds like a good solution. Even if nobody > can test the specific features in the QA team, the backport could be > validated anyway as long as it's self-contained and seems to work OK. So, i' ll backport 2.51.0 tonight if i get spare time. @Angelo, would you mind to test it when it hits mirrors in backports_testing?
@Attila, I can promise anything but i have 2 different readers and a brother that uses calibre under windows just because our one is often old. If you update it more than now, and add me in cc, bug/update report i will try to give some feedbacks.
@Remi does it really make sense having an official version that is outdated for some (if not more) readers? And that not because they are new, but because they update firmware often. Just a thought...
(In reply to Angelo Naselli from comment #7) > @Remi does it really make sense having an official version that is outdated > for some (if not more) readers? And that not because they are new, but > because they update firmware often. Just a thought... Well that's something that has to be assessed. hplip was in this case, and it was chosen to push it to backports as the new version would break support for some devices while adding support for new ones. And an official update should not break working stuff. Now if newer versions of Calibre don't break things for existing users, it could be considered as an update I guess if the QA team allows it. But it would then also require some active involvement of new testers as there aren't many Calibre users in the usual QA testers.
(In reply to Rémi Verschelde from comment #8) > Now if newer versions of Calibre don't break things for existing users, it > could be considered as an update I guess if the QA team allows it. But it That's a good point... and unfortunately i cannot say anything there... maybe we can study a bit changelogs...
Ok. I submit calibre 2.52.0 to backports_testing repository and updated advisory at bug #17362. Angelo would you mind to test it? I also added cc list for that backport request. I want to close this bug report in favour of bug #17362 but can't decide close this as wontfix or fixed
Status: NEW => RESOLVEDResolution: (none) => FIXED
Any way i closed this. Please feel free to re-open if this solution isn't appropriate
I will make tests tonight. Thanks
New version supports my firmware i can't see any regressions for the use i do.