[pkg-kolab] State of debian packages?

[Philip Hands]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 15. März 2007 21:18 schrieb Philip Hands:
>> Also, if I'm going to put effort into getting this to a point where I can
>> use it, it strikes me that it would be a lot more productive to work on the
>> 2.1rc1 code, since any patches we might need in kolab are much more likely
>> to be accepted into the trunk than an old release.  The fact that the SVN
>> for pkg-kolab seems to be stuck at the 1.9.4 kolabd version makes me think
>> that this effort has stalled -- is that right?  or are people beavering
>> away but not mentioning it here?  or is something else going on?
> 
> Well, Debian is in freeze,

I can see that as a reason to stop uploading new packages, but it seems odd
to me that nobody's done anything about a 2.1rc1 branch in SVN

> the packages contain the latest stable upstream 
> version,

Ah, fair enough -- I'd got the impression that the stable version was
2.0.x, but since realise that the debian 1.9.x version is the same stuff.

> there are no bugs except minor details, and we use the packages 
> successfully in several installations, so why should there be any activity?

Well, that's encouraging.

Please would you describe the steps you perform that are different from
what's mentioned in the README.Debian in order to get the packages to do
something useful?  (I have a few bits and pieces that I appear to have had
to do, but I'm not absolutely sure which things helped, and which didn't --
if you could list your recipe then perhaps I can come up with a definite
list for a few bug reports to fix the docs, or more likely the example LDIF
file).

My current impression is that unless they go through quite considerable
effort, a kolab newbie has approximately zero chance of ending up with a
useful installation if they simply do "apt-get install kolabd" and then
follow the contained READMEs -- there may be no bugs about this, but I'd
suggest that most normal people would have lost the will to live long
before getting any clear idea what the problem is, and so would have
nothing very useful to put in a bug report -- I have got a bit further than
that (at about the 4th attempt) but I'd like to save those who follow me
the same pain.

Also, I'm aware that there's at least one patch that upstream thinks is
worthwhile (the ldap-leaf-only patch) that would not be on my system if I'd
not locally patched postfix -- what do you do about this?  Simply ignore
it?  Patch it locally?

> If you want to start packaging 2.1rc1, please join in.

I'd love to, but given that I'm not even sure that I've successfully
installed the old packages, being the person to start the shift to 2.1
seems a tad premature.  If anyone has 2.1 packages in the works, perhaps it
would be good for them to stuff them into SVN so that plebs like me have
something to get their teeth into.

Cheers, Phil.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF/nfoYgOKS92bmRARAlxpAJ9mM54OAYjZNLNbLaHNK7RECZw9NgCgrOJI
yYnj9DcAFabdcrxUmW+ajuo=
=fJkj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----