Menu
▾
▴
opensync-devel
|
From: Chris F. <cd...@fo...> - 2010-09-15 06:46:56
|
Hi Michael, Martin Owens and I were working on updating the binary packaging for libopensync1, in response to user requests, at first basing the work on the packages existing in Debian Sid, as a handy tarball source. Unfortunately, the source tarball seems to be from Sept 2009, and still has the old libopensync.pc pkgconfig name (it is now libopensync1.pc). Would it be possible to update the debian packages more regularly, and if so, how can we help? I'm sure Martin would send his tweaks to update your debian SVN repo. The SVN repo has updates from 2010, so I don't know how the sources on debian unstable are so out of date. Thanks, - Chris |
|
From: Daniel G. <go...@b1...> - 2010-09-15 06:57:03
|
On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 06:46:44 pm Chris Frey wrote: > Would it be possible to update the debian packages more regularly, > and if so, how can we help? I'm sure Martin would send his tweaks > to update your debian SVN repo. The SVN repo has updates from 2010, > so I don't know how the sources on debian unstable are so out of date. Actually we asked all distros to not package 0.3x ... i guess thats the reason. I would prefer to keep it like that, without complete capabilities implementation a slow-sync will cause data-loss or every single entry duplicated. Without this and with 0.3x packages in Distros, people would install them and turn their "productive" device into a "testing" device without knowing it ... Once capabilities support got implemented i'm happy with realsing 0.40 and lift the package ban. Anything else would be releasing software which is broken. Best Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Gollub Geschaeftsfuehrer: Ralph Dehner Linux Consultant & Developer Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg B1 Systems GmbH Amtsgericht: Ingolstadt Mobil: +49-(0)-160 47 73 970 Handelsregister: HRB 3537 EMail: go...@b1... http://www.b1-systems.de Adresse: B1 Systems GmbH, Osterfeldstraße 7, 85088 Vohburg http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xED14B95C2F8CA78D |
|
From: Chris F. <cd...@fo...> - 2010-09-15 07:01:59
|
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 06:56:13PM +1200, Daniel Gollub wrote: > Actually we asked all distros to not package 0.3x ... i guess thats the > reason. I would prefer to keep it like that, without complete capabilities > implementation a slow-sync will cause data-loss or every single entry > duplicated. Without this and with 0.3x packages in Distros, people would > install them and turn their "productive" device into a "testing" device > without knowing it ... Oh no, not for official release, but there is already a libopensync1exp7 package in debian unstable which is out of date, and with 0.22 gone in Debian, there's no harm anymore in 0.39 staying in the unstable and experimental trees. > Once capabilities support got implemented i'm happy with realsing 0.40 and > lift the package ban. Anything else would be releasing software which is > broken. I don't want to see any distro including 0.39 in official releases. This is for testing. Users would test things for us if there were binary packages available. Right now I end up on IRC trying to help people compile, or trying to figure out why old binary packages don't work. :-) Thanks, - Chris |
|
From: Chris F. <cd...@fo...> - 2010-09-15 07:10:58
|
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 03:01:45AM -0400, Chris Frey wrote: > and with 0.22 gone in Debian Just to clarify, there is no opensync in the next release of Debian stable, which will be Squeeze. Neither 0.22, nor 0.39. There is no danger of conflict if 0.39 is in unstable. - Chris |
|
From: Michael B. <mb...@gm...> - 2010-09-17 09:30:30
|
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 03:10:48AM -0400, Chris Frey wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 03:01:45AM -0400, Chris Frey wrote: > > and with 0.22 gone in Debian > > Just to clarify, there is no opensync in the next release of Debian stable, > which will be Squeeze. Neither 0.22, nor 0.39. There is no danger > of conflict if 0.39 is in unstable. It will certainly be possible to support opensync-0.3x in backports once squeeze is released and opensync stabilizes. Michael |
|
From: Daniel G. <go...@b1...> - 2010-09-15 07:19:20
|
On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 07:01:45 pm Chris Frey wrote: > > Once capabilities support got implemented i'm happy with realsing 0.40 > > and lift the package ban. Anything else would be releasing software > > which is broken. > > I don't want to see any distro including 0.39 in official releases. > This is for testing. Users would test things for us if there > were binary packages available. Right now I end up on IRC trying to > help people compile, or trying to figure out why old binary packages > don't work. :-) I see. But please make sure that people know what they are really doing once they install those packages. -- Daniel Gollub Geschaeftsfuehrer: Ralph Dehner Linux Consultant & Developer Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg B1 Systems GmbH Amtsgericht: Ingolstadt Mobil: +49-(0)-160 47 73 970 Handelsregister: HRB 3537 EMail: go...@b1... http://www.b1-systems.de Adresse: B1 Systems GmbH, Osterfeldstraße 7, 85088 Vohburg http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xED14B95C2F8CA78D |
|
From: Michael B. <mb...@gm...> - 2010-09-15 07:22:38
|
Hi, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 03:01:45AM -0400, Chris Frey wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 06:56:13PM +1200, Daniel Gollub wrote: > > Actually we asked all distros to not package 0.3x ... i guess thats the > > reason. I would prefer to keep it like that, without complete capabilities > > implementation a slow-sync will cause data-loss or every single entry > > duplicated. Without this and with 0.3x packages in Distros, people would > > install them and turn their "productive" device into a "testing" device > > without knowing it ... > > Oh no, not for official release, but there is already a libopensync1exp7 > package in debian unstable which is out of date, and with 0.22 gone in > Debian, there's no harm anymore in 0.39 staying in the unstable and > experimental trees. It is not out of date, it is the currently released development release, as far as I know. Also 0.22, is still in the stable release, it is not gone from Debian entirely, just from testing/unstable. (There was talk about reviving 0.22 just for the python plugins, which apparently seem to work well for some people still, but I did not get around it so far, and with the freeze in effect I doubt it is doable) We could package subversion snapshots as well, but for the first part of 2010, I was not aware of any major advances in opensync which would have warranted that. Note that libopensync1exp* has to be manually approved for each new version right now as the API keeps changing and so does the package name, so I am not sure very frequent uploads make that much sense. > > Once capabilities support got implemented i'm happy with realsing 0.40 and > > lift the package ban. Anything else would be releasing software which is > > broken. > > I don't want to see any distro including 0.39 in official releases. > This is for testing. Users would test things for us if there > were binary packages available. Right now I end up on IRC trying to > help people compile, or trying to figure out why old binary packages > don't work. :-) There's no danger of Debian shipping 0.3x in the next stable release, at least :) Michael |
|
From: Chris F. <cd...@fo...> - 2010-09-15 07:26:55
|
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 07:18:19PM +1200, Daniel Gollub wrote: > I see. But please make sure that people know what they are really doing once > they install those packages. Point taken. Can you write a quick warning blurb in reply, that we can use on the wiki? Something that includes what functionality is missing, so that developers might be tempted to fix it. A page on the wiki that points to binary packages for testing purposes would be helpful, and should have such a warning for all to see. Quentin or I can set that up. If I wrote the blurb, I'd probably be too optimistic. :-) Thanks, - Chris |
|
From: Chris F. <cd...@fo...> - 2010-09-15 07:36:18
|
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:22:28AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > It is not out of date, it is the currently released development release, > as far as I know. Also 0.22, is still in the stable release, it is not > gone from Debian entirely, just from testing/unstable. (There was talk > about reviving 0.22 just for the python plugins, which apparently seem > to work well for some people still, but I did not get around it so far, > and with the freeze in effect I doubt it is doable) If 0.22 could return to Squeeze, that would be great. Let me know how I can help, because that would make my life easier. > We could package subversion snapshots as well, but for the first part of > 2010, I was not aware of any major advances in opensync which would have > warranted that. I think it is less about progress made or not, and more about having an automated system for creating binary packages for people who just want to run a quick test and help developers. > Note that libopensync1exp* has to be manually approved for each new > version right now as the API keeps changing and so does the package > name, so I am not sure very frequent uploads make that much sense. That's something I didn't know... so perhaps Debian unstable is the wrong place to do this package work. It is just a prime target, because Debian is a great place to get software. :-) When I saw 0.39, I assumed great things. > There's no danger of Debian shipping 0.3x in the next stable release, at > least :) :-) - Chris |
|
From: Michael B. <mb...@de...> - 2010-10-07 19:48:15
|
Hi, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 03:36:03AM -0400, Chris Frey wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:22:28AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > > It is not out of date, it is the currently released development release, > > as far as I know. Also 0.22, is still in the stable release, it is not > > gone from Debian entirely, just from testing/unstable. (There was talk > > about reviving 0.22 just for the python plugins, which apparently seem > > to work well for some people still, but I did not get around it so far, > > and with the freeze in effect I doubt it is doable) > > If 0.22 could return to Squeeze, that would be great. Let me know > how I can help, because that would make my life easier. I have now made the case of reverting to 0.22 to the Debian release team, let's see whether they accept this. I believe those are the main issues currently: 1. The syncml plugin 0.22 version is not ported to libsyncml-0.5.4. So unless somebody ports it, it will have to be dropped. 2. The google-calendar plugin crashes if changes have been made in the other member. This is ticket #750, which maybe only applies to a google-calendar plugin ported to 4suite XML (Debian and Ubuntu have dropped python-xml, so it had to be ported). I found out that earlier versions (0.x) of 4suite worked fine, see my analysis here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=468601#25 But I guess this will have to be fixed on the google-calendar side. The 4suite port is also in that bug report to look at. 3. I had issues with the evolution plugin where changes made in its addressbook were not reported to the engine. I have not investigated this in detail. > > We could package subversion snapshots as well, but for the first part of > > 2010, I was not aware of any major advances in opensync which would have > > warranted that. > > I think it is less about progress made or not, and more about having an > automated system for creating binary packages for people who just want > to run a quick test and help developers. Automatic building and uploading does not really work well with Debian, uploads are supposed to happen manually. Also, the opensync API has still been changing and packages might be broken more than working. It would make more sense to have more regular releases of opensync, in my opinion. Once squeeze is out and 0.4x packages work somewhat reliably, I can upload backports of them for squeeze users to enjoy. Michael |
|
From: Daniel G. <go...@b1...> - 2010-09-15 08:23:18
|
On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 07:26:45 pm Chris Frey wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 07:18:19PM +1200, Daniel Gollub wrote: > > I see. But please make sure that people know what they are really doing > > once they install those packages. > > Point taken. > > Can you write a quick warning blurb in reply, that we can use on the wiki? > Something that includes what functionality is missing, so that developers > might be tempted to fix it. > > A page on the wiki that points to binary packages for testing purposes > would be helpful, and should have such a warning for all to see. > Quentin or I can set that up. > > If I wrote the blurb, I'd probably be too optimistic. :-) We used to have this on the WikiStart page: ---8<-- Releases 0.22 (and 0.2x svn branch) and before are considered stable and suitable for production. 0.3x releases introduce major architecture and API changes and are targeted for developers and testers only and may not even compile or are likely to contain severe bugs. 0.3x releases are not recommended for end users or distribution packaging. --->8-- http://opensync.org/wiki/WikiStart?version=57 Too make it more scary .. just add "... contain serve bugs, which cause complete data-loss or duplicate all your data". Best Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Gollub Geschaeftsfuehrer: Ralph Dehner Linux Consultant & Developer Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg B1 Systems GmbH Amtsgericht: Ingolstadt Mobil: +49-(0)-160 47 73 970 Handelsregister: HRB 3537 EMail: go...@b1... http://www.b1-systems.de Adresse: B1 Systems GmbH, Osterfeldstraße 7, 85088 Vohburg http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xED14B95C2F8CA78D |
|
From: Chris F. <cd...@fo...> - 2010-09-15 08:53:30
|
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 08:22:45PM +1200, Daniel Gollub wrote: > Too make it more scary .. just add "... contain serve bugs, which cause > complete data-loss or duplicate all your data". Duplicating all your data, I know, and potentially hanging in a busy loop, but which bug causes complete data-loss? Is this an engine bug? - Chris |
|
From: Juha T. <Juh...@ik...> - 2010-09-15 08:37:00
|
On Wednesday 15 September 2010 10:26:45 Chris Frey wrote: > Can you write a quick warning blurb in reply, that we can use on the wiki? > Something that includes what functionality is missing, so that developers > might be tempted to fix it. > > A page on the wiki that points to binary packages for testing purposes > would be helpful, and should have such a warning for all to see. > Quentin or I can set that up. We had such blurp for long time and for reason. denisq during his front page editing hosed http://opensync.org/wiki/WikiStart?action=diff&version=139&old_version=138 is for some reason, my guess is that he thought that makes opensync sound like unfinished - something that it is. The fact is that until those folks who can write those missing core parts, there is not that much that others can do. Removing that warning label from front page is just going to make people upset again what it did earlier and why it was put there in the first place. Loosing your valuable contacts during your first attempt of backuping with opensync is something that I would get pissed off too. My question is, what is the gain from having anyone to log in and change wiki compared to manually created accounts? It would kill spamming that we've been targeted for years at least. I've a feeling that nobody of old farts is looking after what goes on in wiki these days. Tuju -- Better to have one, and not need it, than to need one and not have it. |
|
From: Daniel G. <go...@b1...> - 2010-09-15 08:49:01
|
On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 08:36:48 pm Juha Tuomala wrote: > We had such blurp for long time and for reason. denisq during his > front page editing hosed > > http://opensync.org/wiki/WikiStart?action=diff&version=139&old_version=138 > > is for some reason, my guess is that he thought that makes opensync sound > like unfinished - something that it is. Could you move that back on the front page? > > The fact is that until those folks who can write those missing core > parts, there is not that much that others can do. Removing that warning > label from front page is just going to make people upset again > what it did earlier and why it was put there in the first place. > > Loosing your valuable contacts during your first attempt of backuping > with opensync is something that I would get pissed off too. > > My question is, what is the gain from having anyone to log in and > change wiki compared to manually created accounts? It would kill spamming > that we've been targeted for years at least. I've a feeling that > nobody of old farts is looking after what goes on in wiki these days. Good point ... could you start a different thread about that? -- Daniel Gollub Geschaeftsfuehrer: Ralph Dehner Linux Consultant & Developer Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg B1 Systems GmbH Amtsgericht: Ingolstadt Mobil: +49-(0)-160 47 73 970 Handelsregister: HRB 3537 EMail: go...@b1... http://www.b1-systems.de Adresse: B1 Systems GmbH, Osterfeldstraße 7, 85088 Vohburg http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xED14B95C2F8CA78D |
|
From: Juha T. <Juh...@ik...> - 2010-09-15 09:51:20
|
On Wednesday 15 September 2010 11:48:17 Daniel Gollub wrote: > On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 08:36:48 pm Juha Tuomala wrote: > > My question is, what is the gain from having anyone to log in and > > change wiki compared to manually created accounts? It would kill spamming > > that we've been targeted for years at least. I've a feeling that > > nobody of old farts is looking after what goes on in wiki these days. > > Good point ... could you start a different thread about that? So, does that wiki/trac support it if we would want to switch off that open account creating? There were couple other admin tasks too, but waiting for 0.4 release. Should we do them before if this release is still going to take some time? Tuju -- Better to have one, and not need it, than to need one and not have it. |
|
From: Juha T. <Juh...@ik...> - 2010-10-05 14:35:51
|
On Wednesday 15 September 2010 11:48:17 you wrote: > On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 08:36:48 pm Juha Tuomala wrote: > > We had such blurp for long time and for reason. denisq during his > > front page editing hosed > > > > http://opensync.org/wiki/WikiStart?action=diff&version=139&old_version=138 > > > > is for some reason, my guess is that he thought that makes opensync sound > > like unfinished - something that it is. > > Could you move that back on the front page? I let the person who removed it to put it back. Among other useful stuff that has been flushed. > > My question is, what is the gain from having anyone to log in and > > change wiki compared to manually created accounts? It would kill spamming > > that we've been targeted for years at least. I've a feeling that > > nobody of old farts is looking after what goes on in wiki these days. > > Good point ... could you start a different thread about that? That didn't lead anywhere, so if nobody is against it, I switch off that open account creating and also clean up all spammer and suspicious accounts from db. Tuju -- Better to have one, and not need it, than to need one and not have it. |
|
From: deloptes <del...@ya...> - 2010-10-07 23:21:49
|
Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 03:36:03AM -0400, Chris Frey wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:22:28AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: >> > It is not out of date, it is the currently released development >> > release, >> > as far as I know. Also 0.22, is still in the stable release, it is not >> > gone from Debian entirely, just from testing/unstable. (There was talk >> > about reviving 0.22 just for the python plugins, which apparently seem >> > to work well for some people still, but I did not get around it so far, >> > and with the freeze in effect I doubt it is doable) >> >> If 0.22 could return to Squeeze, that would be great. Let me know >> how I can help, because that would make my life easier. > > I have now made the case of reverting to 0.22 to the Debian release > team, let's see whether they accept this. I believe those are the > main issues currently: > > 1. The syncml plugin 0.22 version is not ported to libsyncml-0.5.4. So > unless somebody ports it, it will have to be dropped. I am heavy debian user and I know they will have somewhere backported apps in repository for installation, so I don't think it is really an issue. To be honest if you miss a train you probably get late for where you are going, so I think opensync missed the train for the next debian stable already. Nevertheless I personally want to be finally able to sync my desktop somewhen in the future, so I would put some time into makeing it possible for at least the future stable and testing. If we have 0.40 in next testing what is now sid, I hope more people would use it and report problems. I don't see issues with the engine itself, but rather as someone mentioned in the known formats and in the plugins. I'm not sure which version was referred but from what I've seen until now it is working pretty well at least for the contacts in kde 4.5/6. > > 2. The google-calendar plugin crashes if changes have been made in the > other member. This is ticket #750, which maybe only applies to a > google-calendar plugin ported to 4suite XML (Debian and Ubuntu have > dropped python-xml, so it had to be ported). I found out that earlier > versions (0.x) of 4suite worked fine, see my analysis here: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=468601#25 > But I guess this will have to be fixed on the google-calendar side. The > 4suite port is also in that bug report to look at. > > 3. I had issues with the evolution plugin where changes made in its > addressbook were not reported to the engine. I have not investigated > this in detail. I opened a bug for this, because I wanted to use it for testing the akonadi-plugin. It made me sick why it was not reporting changes or deletes so I looked into the code and found the issue. I think it is severe bug and the plugin will not work for syncing. If it has the same logic in 0.22 or 0.39 probably it is not working as well. > >> > We could package subversion snapshots as well, but for the first part >> > of 2010, I was not aware of any major advances in opensync which would >> > have warranted that. >> >> I think it is less about progress made or not, and more about having an >> automated system for creating binary packages for people who just want >> to run a quick test and help developers. > > Automatic building and uploading does not really work well with Debian, > uploads are supposed to happen manually. Also, the opensync API has > still been changing and packages might be broken more than working. It > would make more sense to have more regular releases of opensync, in my > opinion. > > Once squeeze is out and 0.4x packages work somewhat reliably, I can > upload backports of them for squeeze users to enjoy. > I was thinking to create a debian dir and introduce it to the other opensync members. The build process is somehow trivial for (most) of them that I have already compiled. osynctool --listplugins Available plugins: syncml-http-server syncml-http-client syncml-obex-client file-sync evo2-sync akonadi-sync For now filesync is working very well with akonadi and contacts. I'm planing to start testing syncml with akonadi in few days. I could try fixing the evo2 plugin too, but ATM I have too many business projects open and no time to learn the evo api also my C/C++ experience is not at high professional level. In this concern I also think we need better API documentation but it is not related to debian or stability. It would just help doing things faster. So to sum up I think it is better to test squeeze with 0.22 and members from backports and to see what needs to be done. If it's too much then leave it or patch the old libsyncml. Unfortunately I'm not planning to use squeeze but rather stay on what will be testing next, so I'm not interested in doing anything for squeeze. If you need a good desktop then debian testing is the best (my humbled opinion). Squeeze is problematic to me because of the kde release. Thanks for the discussion as I think it's _finally_ time to have linux syncable with mobiles and sort this topic out. regards |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X