[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: libsyncml

Till Maas wrote:
On Sa März 21 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rawhide Report wrote:
libopensync-plugin-syncml-0.35-4.fc10.i386 requires libsyncml.so.0
To elaborate on this:

The thing is, nothing builds against libsyncml 0.5.0. osmo has syncml
support disabled and libopensync-plugin-syncml has broken dependencies. So
the 0.5.0 build is completely useless, the only way out I see is to revert
it with an Epoch bump.

The up to date upstream release of libopensync-plugin-syncml requires libsyncml 0.5.0, so probably libopensync-* can be bumped to 0.38 do get it working. I have successfully built libopensync, the file and the syncml plugin and the msynctool locally[0] with some adjustments to the spec files. But it may also be better to go back to the 0.2X branch of libopensync, because it is documented and there are a lot of people who have successfully used it. The 0.3X packages do not sync syncml with the file plugin here, but I also did not test 0.2X.

I would appreciate a 0.2X version of opensync. I was actually confused as to why Fedora went with a newer version, as their website states that the only good/stable version is 0.22 and that the next one will be 0.4. Software like barry (blackberry sync) is one piece of software that is waiting for a stable opensync lib before updating its code. So when F10 went with a newer libopensync, I could no longer sync my blackberry...

From their website:

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.

Nathanael d. Noblet
T: 403.875.4613

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]