On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 18:04 +0100, Graham Cobb wrote: > On 16/10/16 20:33, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > I've update the "experimental" and "unstable" repo and published > > versions 1.5.1+20161014+SE+46a81a3+SYSYNC+7c9a4bf (SyncEvolution) and > > 0.92+20161014+SE+8918ba1 (activesyncd). > > > > I have installed on my production (Debian Jessie) system. This installed > (as expected) activesyncd-jessie 0.92+20161014+SE+8918ba1-1. > > However, this activesyncd seems to expect libwbxml2.so.1, which is not > available in jessie (or stretch). > > I note that on my development system (running stretch) I have previously > built that version of libwbxml2 and installed it into /usr/local. I have > not yet tried copying it to my production system because I wanted to > check with you first. It seems that your activesyncd packages cannot be > used on Debian systems? > > To further complicate matters, it looks like the the previous > activesynd-stretch package actually included that library file. Did you > change that deliberately?
No, that is a regression. I'll fix it. libwbxml2.so.1 needs to be included in the .deb exactly because distros don't have a recent enough version. I know, this isn't particularly good packaging, but as long as it works, I don't care about "nice". These are all problems which should have been caught by the automated testing. I really need to sign up for some hosted Exchange service :-/ > > If you pull from "experimental", then please replace with "unstable": > > the idea is that only I update from "experimental" and that "unstable" > > will get the same update after some sanity checking. I didn't follow > > that when announcing the version above, so if you now follow > > "experimental", then please replace by "unstable". > > It seems that the versions you mention above are only present in > "experimental", not "unstable". Is that what you intended? No, "unstable" should also have had it. I must have missed one rsync invocation. I'll fix that as part of the next build. -- 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 [email protected] https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
