Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:53:05 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: [...] > I understand that this is closer to the Debian Stretch freeze than > originally hope, but perhaps you can still get it in. Thanks for > your help! Hi, the timing is currently not a problem. Regards, Tino ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 14:05 +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:09:43 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 10:18 +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > > > may I assume that nothing release-ish is scheduled for the next few > > > months? Otherwise it would be nice to be as recent as possible > > > regarding the version in Debian when the freeze starts. > > > > Quite the opposite, I am determined to finally get a 1.5.2 out ;-} > > I might have some pre-release binaries for testing this week or early > > next week. > > Hi, > > I would like to know about the relevant git tags for syncevolution and > libsynthesis when this happens, and also when the tags are moved due to > late changes (which at least happened in the past). I've released 1.5.2 and the associated tags should all be in place and final. I understand that this is closer to the Debian Stretch freeze than originally hope, but perhaps you can still get it in. Thanks for your help! -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:09:43 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 10:18 +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > > may I assume that nothing release-ish is scheduled for the next few > > months? Otherwise it would be nice to be as recent as possible > > regarding the version in Debian when the freeze starts. > > Quite the opposite, I am determined to finally get a 1.5.2 out ;-} > I might have some pre-release binaries for testing this week or early > next week. Hi, I would like to know about the relevant git tags for syncevolution and libsynthesis when this happens, and also when the tags are moved due to late changes (which at least happened in the past). Regards, Tino ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 10:18 +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > may I assume that nothing release-ish is scheduled for the next few > months? Otherwise it would be nice to be as recent as possible > regarding the version in Debian when the freeze starts. Quite the opposite, I am determined to finally get a 1.5.2 out ;-} I might have some pre-release binaries for testing this week or early next week. Thanks for reminding me about the Stretch release deadline. This is indeed valuable information. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 20:58:14 +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 15:22:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > Debian Stable, which only has an old version (1.4.99). > > Hi, > > I just remembered that one reason for that somewhat ugly version in > Jessie was that the 1.5 release came slightly after the freeze for > Jessie. So FYI the current roadmap for Stretch says "Q3 2016: Please finish > up things for > Stretch" with the first freeze (for library transitions) scheduled for > November 5th. Hi Patrick, may I assume that nothing release-ish is scheduled for the next few months? Otherwise it would be nice to be as recent as possible regarding the version in Debian when the freeze starts. Regards, Tino ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 15:22:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > Debian Stable, which only has an old version (1.4.99). Hi, I just remembered that one reason for that somewhat ugly version in Jessie was that the 1.5 release came slightly after the freeze for Jessie. So FYI the current roadmap for Stretch says "Q3 2016: Please finish up things for Stretch" with the first freeze (for library transitions) scheduled for November 5th. Regards, Tino ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 23:35 +0100, Graham Cobb wrote: > On 22/08/16 14:22, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > So let me ask: which distro do you need syncevolution.org binaries for? > > Why? > > I meant to reply to this before. May not be needed now as you seem to > have decided to build for Jessie and Stretch anyway... Not at all, it is a useful data point and in fact, it reminds me that I need to enable also building activesyncd for Stretch. > I find it useful to have precompiled binaries for Debian stable (my > production system) and Debian testing (my development system). I'm using the binaries for Debian stable myself, so I know what you mean and certainly want to keep those around. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries
On 22/08/16 14:22, Patrick Ohly wrote: > So let me ask: which distro do you need syncevolution.org binaries for? > Why? I meant to reply to this before. May not be needed now as you seem to have decided to build for Jessie and Stretch anyway... I find it useful to have precompiled binaries for Debian stable (my production system) and Debian testing (my development system). Of course, Tino provides packages but I have sometimes found it useful to be able to use your latest build before they have appeared in the distribution. I build my own versions when I am doing development. But I still find it convenient to have a "standard" version installed so I can compare behaviour :-) And just knowing that it is building for you is very helpful when it isn't building for me! So, I could certainly live without your builds -- Tino's packages would normally meet my needs and I could always build if I needed to. But I do use your versions and appreciate having them available. Graham ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries - dropping Akonadi support?
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 21:03 +0200, deloptes wrote: > Patrick Ohly wrote: > > I have a working solution for Akonadi 13.0 in Debian Jessie, but that no > > longer works for Akonadi 16.0 in Debian 16.0 in Debian Stretch. > > > > One difference is that the newer Akonadi, or rather the libs it is > > linked against, depend on being able to connect to X11. That wasn't the > > case before. I'm providing that now and the akonadi server starts okay > > (akonadiconsole works), so I think that's covered. > > > > But ssh -X should solve it in the case. Yes, but it no longer seems to be enough, or something is simply broken in the more recent Akonadi. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries - dropping Akonadi support?
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 18:44 +0200, deloptes wrote: > Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 23:12 +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 15:22:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > While testing, I noticed that Akonadi has issues on Debian > > Stretch (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97609). To move > > forward with that, I would have to write a simpler reproducer, then file > > a bug against Debian and/or Akonadi. > > > > Tino, can you reproduce the same with the Debian packages > > > (https://packages.debian.org/stretch/amd64/syncevolution-libs-kde/filelist)? > > > > It could be specific to my test environment (X11 provided by VNC only > > because Akonadi no longer runs headless, no KDE session). > > > > Is anyone still using SyncEvolution with Akonadi? > > > > This might be useful for you. I just replaced opensync with syncevolution. > Wou'll need probably some adjustments > > export LC_ALL=de_DE.UTF-8 [...] Which version of Akonadi does this work with? I have a working solution for Akonadi 13.0 in Debian Jessie, but that no longer works for Akonadi 16.0 in Debian 16.0 in Debian Stretch. One difference is that the newer Akonadi, or rather the libs it is linked against, depend on being able to connect to X11. That wasn't the case before. I'm providing that now and the akonadi server starts okay (akonadiconsole works), so I think that's covered. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries - dropping Akonadi support?
Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 23:12 +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 15:22:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: >> > One exception >> > is perhaps Debian Stable, which only has an old version (1.4.99). But >> > even that isn't too bad. >> >> Hi Patrick, >> >> I could check if a backport of 1.5.1 for Stable is trivial. Users >> would have to manually add the backports repository, but installing >> binaries from syncevolution.org requires some manual steps, too. > > After fiddling with the build system I think I have Debian Jessie and > Testing/Stretch covered. So thanks for the offer, but unless someone > wants to have "official" Debian packages backported, there's no need. > > I'm still not sure what binaries and features users really need > nowadays. While testing, I noticed that Akonadi has issues on Debian > Stretch (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97609). To move > forward with that, I would have to write a simpler reproducer, then file > a bug against Debian and/or Akonadi. > > Tino, can you reproduce the same with the Debian packages > (https://packages.debian.org/stretch/amd64/syncevolution-libs-kde/filelist)? > > It could be specific to my test environment (X11 provided by VNC only > because Akonadi no longer runs headless, no KDE session). > > Is anyone still using SyncEvolution with Akonadi? > This might be useful for you. I just replaced opensync with syncevolution. Wou'll need probably some adjustments export LC_ALL=de_DE.UTF-8 KDEDIR=/usr SYNCEVOLUTION=/opt/testing/syncevolution KDEDIRS=$SYNCEVOLUTION:$KDEDIR AKTESTHOME=$HOME/kde-testdir KDEHOME=$AKTESTHOME/.kde KDETMP=$AKTESTHOME/kdetmp KDEVARTMP=$AKTESTHOME/kdevartmp PATH=$SYNCEVOLUTION/bin:$KDEDIR/bin:$PATH LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$SYNCEVOLUTION/lib:$KDEDIR/lib:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/opt/testing/syncevolution/lib/pkgconfig export KDEDIRS PATH LD_LIBRARY_PATH AKTESTHOME KDEHOME KDETMP KDEVARTMP PKG_CONFIG_PATH XDG_DATA_DIRS=$SYNCEVOLUTION/share:$KDEDIR/share:/usr/local/share:/usr/share export XDG_DATA_DIRS XDG_DATA_HOME=$AKTESTHOME/.local/share XDG_CONFIG_HOME=$AKTESTHOME/.config export XDG_DATA_HOME XDG_CONFIG_HOME ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries - dropping Akonadi support?
Patrick Ohly wrote: > It could be specific to my test environment (X11 provided by VNC only > because Akonadi no longer runs headless, no KDE session). I think I still have some useful scripts (.profile) to run Akonadi from the command line after ssh -X. If interested let me know - I'll have a look. I'm interested in getting the libraries for debian jessie or strech/sid so that I may rebuild for TDE. I have heard nothing from Tino if the issues with jessie were solved. If you could provide the dependencies and debian related src files it would be great. I've been too busy recently, but I'll drop the code as soon as I can next. regards ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries - dropping Akonadi support?
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 23:12 +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 15:22:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > One exception > > is perhaps Debian Stable, which only has an old version (1.4.99). But > > even that isn't too bad. > > Hi Patrick, > > I could check if a backport of 1.5.1 for Stable is trivial. Users > would have to manually add the backports repository, but installing > binaries from syncevolution.org requires some manual steps, too. After fiddling with the build system I think I have Debian Jessie and Testing/Stretch covered. So thanks for the offer, but unless someone wants to have "official" Debian packages backported, there's no need. I'm still not sure what binaries and features users really need nowadays. While testing, I noticed that Akonadi has issues on Debian Stretch (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97609). To move forward with that, I would have to write a simpler reproducer, then file a bug against Debian and/or Akonadi. Tino, can you reproduce the same with the Debian packages (https://packages.debian.org/stretch/amd64/syncevolution-libs-kde/filelist)? It could be specific to my test environment (X11 provided by VNC only because Akonadi no longer runs headless, no KDE session). Is anyone still using SyncEvolution with Akonadi? -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
Re: [SyncEvolution] survey: providing SyncEvolution binaries
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 15:22:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > One exception > is perhaps Debian Stable, which only has an old version (1.4.99). But > even that isn't too bad. Hi Patrick, I could check if a backport of 1.5.1 for Stable is trivial. Users would have to manually add the backports repository, but installing binaries from syncevolution.org requires some manual steps, too. Regards, Tino ___ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
