Thread: [Opensync-devel] binary package build scripts

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Hi,

Where do I find the binary package build scripts for opensync and all
the plugins?  I'm looking for both deb and rpm.

Thanks,
- Chris

On Saturday 04 September 2010 04:37:48 Chris Frey wrote:
> Where do I find the binary package build scripts for opensync and all
> the plugins?  I'm looking for both deb and rpm.

Let's hope they don't exist and that remains so.

It's not the upstream's job to make those, it will 
fail anyway if attempted.

Tuju

-- 
Better to have one, and not need it, than to need one and not have it.

On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 02:10:26PM +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
> 
> On Saturday 04 September 2010 04:37:48 Chris Frey wrote:
> > Where do I find the binary package build scripts for opensync and all
> > the plugins?  I'm looking for both deb and rpm.
> 
> Let's hope they don't exist and that remains so.
> 
> It's not the upstream's job to make those, it will 
> fail anyway if attempted.

It is upstream's job if the packages do not exist in the distros yet,
or anymore.

I can grab the scripts from the source packages, but I was hoping there
was some SVN or git repo where I can actually help the packagers if I find
bugs.

- Chris

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Chris Frey wrote:
>> Let's hope they don't exist and that remains so.
>>
>> It's not the upstream's job to make those, it will
>> fail anyway if attempted.
>
> It is upstream's job if the packages do not exist in the distros yet,
> or anymore.

I'm for example maintaining pkgs for Fedora and even run Koji build
system of my own. Lack of packages is not a problem.

Our problem was that there were packages in Fedora which were from 
0.2x branch and everyone was reporting bugs/focusing on those. I
even tried hard to get them to drop those without luck.

Then we had problem that development broke too many things that
SCM HEAD was unusable and didn't really make sense to ship even
for testing.

The question is, has that change recently? I tried to ask
this from core developer, but never got any reply.

There is plenty of people waiting to join back to the minor tasks
for opensync if there actually would be something to do.

Tuju

-- 
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 06:35:00PM -0400, Chris Frey wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 02:10:26PM +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
> > 
> > On Saturday 04 September 2010 04:37:48 Chris Frey wrote:
> > > Where do I find the binary package build scripts for opensync and all
> > > the plugins?  I'm looking for both deb and rpm.
> > 
> > Let's hope they don't exist and that remains so.
> > 
> > It's not the upstream's job to make those, it will 
> > fail anyway if attempted.
> 
> It is upstream's job if the packages do not exist in the distros yet,
> or anymore.
> 
> I can grab the scripts from the source packages, but I was hoping there
> was some SVN or git repo where I can actually help the packagers if I find
> bugs.

There is a subversion repository for the 0.3x Debian packages.  For the
0.2x packages, no repository exists.  Not sure which packages you were
talking about anyway, though.

Michael

On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 04:59:42PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> There is a subversion repository for the 0.3x Debian packages.

Cool.  Can you point me in the right direction?

Thanks,
- Chris

Hi,

On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 01:24:47PM -0400, Chris Frey wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 04:59:42PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > There is a subversion repository for the 0.3x Debian packages.
> 
> Cool.  Can you point me in the right direction?

It's at svn://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-opensync

Michael

On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 01:27:40PM +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
> I'm for example maintaining pkgs for Fedora and even run Koji build
> system of my own. Lack of packages is not a problem.

Cool!  Are your spec files, etc, available in SVN somewhere in case
I wish to follow them personally?  If packages are already available,
I don't want to duplicate effort, but when opensync is completely
gone from Debian Squeeze (both 0.22 and 0.3x), it has me worried,
and someone should stay on top of it.

> Our problem was that there were packages in Fedora which were from 
> 0.2x branch and everyone was reporting bugs/focusing on those. I
> even tried hard to get them to drop those without luck.
> 
> Then we had problem that development broke too many things that
> SCM HEAD was unusable and didn't really make sense to ship even
> for testing.

I remember when Fedora went to 0.3x.  And the API breakage was expected.
I don't think any 0.3x version should be in an official distro, unless
0.22 is there beside it.

But I *do* think that binary packages for 0.3x should be available
somewhere, for those that wish to test.  There are some 0.3x in
Debian experimental... I assume you have some for Fedora?
Not sure about openSuSE.

> The question is, has that change recently? I tried to ask
> this from core developer, but never got any reply.
> 
> There is plenty of people waiting to join back to the minor tasks
> for opensync if there actually would be something to do.

That's great to hear.  Are there any programmers in that set, or are
we talking about packaging tasks?

Are their packages for the 0.3x plugins yet?

As soon as a significant number of plugins are ported over, I think
we should release 0.4x.  So far, the status is:

	Evolution: done
	Barry: done
	File-sync: done
	Ldap: I think done, but I need to give it a test run
	Google-calendar: 50% done, only calendar

Anyone with a syncml phone willing to test the syncml stuff and report
whether it's done or not?

Thanks,
- Chris

On Sunday 05 September 2010 21:08:38 Chris Frey wrote:
> But I *do* think that binary packages for 0.3x should be available
> somewhere, for those that wish to test.  

The problem in past was, that those non-HEAD packages
killed the SCM checkout testing and was one among couple
other reasons why this project stalled. There is plenty of
people who *do* not want to see any more sand in the wheels.

If those packages are updated after *every* commit, then it
serves its purpose and personally could join to hack that kind
of system if can find time for it.

> As soon as a significant number of plugins are ported over, I think
> we should release 0.4x.  So far, the status is:
> 
> 	Evolution: done
> 	Barry: done
> 	File-sync: done
> 	Ldap: I think done, but I need to give it a test run
> 	Google-calendar: 50% done, only calendar
> 
> Anyone with a syncml phone willing to test the syncml stuff and report
> whether it's done or not?

As far as I know, plugin porting was not the issue that was
holding 0.4 release but some structural parts that were not
developed yet. From 0.2x and 0.3x we know, that it doesn't help
much if it works all that 98% and then fails.

I don't want to dicourage you, but I'd like to hear some news from those
who have been hacking the core components, is it somewhat finished
or not? Core is that matters for 0.4 release, not the plugins.

Remember, central EU area just finished their vacation season and 
people are up to their noses with regular jobs, freetime work comes
once you clean up that pile from your work table... so give them 
time to come back.

Tuju

-- 
Better to have one, and not need it, than to need one and not have it.

On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 10:25:16AM +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
> The problem in past was, that those non-HEAD packages
> killed the SCM checkout testing and was one among couple
> other reasons why this project stalled. There is plenty of
> people who *do* not want to see any more sand in the wheels.
> 
> If those packages are updated after *every* commit, then it
> serves its purpose and personally could join to hack that kind
> of system if can find time for it.

I would think that any 0.39 binary packages should follow HEAD
very closely.  I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  Binary packages
of experimental software is just to help users easily test.

So, practically speaking, are these binary packages being built?
If so, where?  If not, what can I do to help get those HEAD-following
packages built?  I ask because I'm a SVN follower, and I'm sure there's
lots of work already out there that doesn't need to be duplicated.

> As far as I know, plugin porting was not the issue that was
> holding 0.4 release but some structural parts that were not
> developed yet. From 0.2x and 0.3x we know, that it doesn't help
> much if it works all that 98% and then fails.
> 
> I don't want to dicourage you, but I'd like to hear some news from those
> who have been hacking the core components, is it somewhat finished
> or not? Core is that matters for 0.4 release, not the plugins.

I don't think we'll know whether the core is ready for release unless
all the plugins are ported and working.  If all the plugins are ported
and working, and end users are reporting success, is there any
reason not so release 0.4x?

Presumably, if users are testing the plugins, we'll find core issues
soon enough.  If the core people are willing to explain in some detail
what needs to be fixed, I might be able to take a stab at it.  I think
it is easier if there is an actual use case to debug than a theoretical
architecture issue, simply because I don't have the entire opensync
engine architecture in my head.  I fix things as I find them.

> Remember, central EU area just finished their vacation season and 
> people are up to their noses with regular jobs, freetime work comes
> once you clean up that pile from your work table... so give them 
> time to come back.

No pressure.  But if there is something I can do in the meantime
while they are busy, I would like to know.

- Chris

On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 02:08:38PM -0400, Chris Frey wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 01:27:40PM +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
> > I'm for example maintaining pkgs for Fedora and even run Koji build
> > system of my own. Lack of packages is not a problem.
> 
> Cool!  Are your spec files, etc, available in SVN somewhere in case
> I wish to follow them personally?  If packages are already available,
> I don't want to duplicate effort, but when opensync is completely
> gone from Debian Squeeze (both 0.22 and 0.3x), it has me worried,
> and someone should stay on top of it.

Well, I posted about this. 0.22 is not maintained upstream to any
visable degree and 0.3x is just not ready yet.

Michael

On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 09:46:37AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 02:08:38PM -0400, Chris Frey wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 01:27:40PM +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
> > > I'm for example maintaining pkgs for Fedora and even run Koji build
> > > system of my own. Lack of packages is not a problem.
> > 
> > Cool!  Are your spec files, etc, available in SVN somewhere in case
> > I wish to follow them personally?  If packages are already available,
> > I don't want to duplicate effort, but when opensync is completely
> > gone from Debian Squeeze (both 0.22 and 0.3x), it has me worried,
> > and someone should stay on top of it.
> 
> Well, I posted about this. 0.22 is not maintained upstream to any
> visable degree and 0.3x is just not ready yet.

I know. :-)  I was slightly irritated at the time, and would have liked
to get 0.22 back in, but I guess if you're being buried alive in bug
reports that are never closed, that's no fun either.

As for 0.3x, I believe it will be ready when the plugins are.

- Chris

> I remember when Fedora went to 0.3x.  And the API breakage was expected.
> I don't think any 0.3x version should be in an official distro, unless
> 0.22 is there beside it.
> 
> But I *do* think that binary packages for 0.3x should be available
> somewhere, for those that wish to test.  There are some 0.3x in
> Debian experimental... I assume you have some for Fedora?
> Not sure about openSuSE.

Chris, I've got some of the head 0.3x stuff in an PPA for Ubuntu at 

https://launchpad.net/~mark-mpellis/+archive/opensync-trunk

It's mainly there so I can try and get the python plugin working, but
it's available for all and has working examples of deb packages. Some of
the gloss isn't done eg. proper descriptions, but it does work alongside
0.22 happily. I intend to add more as I can, and keep it up to date with
further commits.

Mark

On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Mark Ellis wrote:
> Chris, I've got some of the head 0.3x stuff in an PPA for Ubuntu at 
> 
> https://launchpad.net/~mark-mpellis/+archive/opensync-trunk
> 
> It's mainly there so I can try and get the python plugin working, but
> it's available for all and has working examples of deb packages. Some of
> the gloss isn't done eg. proper descriptions, but it does work alongside
> 0.22 happily. I intend to add more as I can, and keep it up to date with
> further commits.

Excellent.  Thanks. :-)

So it looks like we have at least 2 deb based binary packages for 0.39,
one from Mark Ellis (updated with HEAD), and one from Michael Banck
(also updated regularly from HEAD?).

How about the RPM side?

- Chris

Thread: [Opensync-devel] binary package build scripts

opensync-devel