libsyncml

[Alex Lancaster]

>>>>> "AW" == Adam Williamson  writes:

AW> On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 10:34 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
>> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> > On 03/23/2009 06:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > 
>> > <snip>
>> > 
>> >> Synchronizing with Blackberries works well if the opensync plugin for
>> >> Barry is available (currently, in Fedora, it's not - the barry package
>> >> should be updated to include it).
>> > 
>> > I did the barry review, and the reason the opensync plugin in barry is
>> > disabled is because it needs opensync-0.22, so if we revert I'm sure the
>> > maintainer will happily enable it.
>> 
>> So who do we prod to get it reverted?

AW> Relaying from Andreas:

AW> "please go ahead and start with on proposing it. I am currently in a bad
AW> situation as I am moving and my internet is not up again yet (may happen
AW> tomorrow). I will get to you asap."

AW> So Andreas is happy for this to be proposed to get into F11 at this
AW> point. Echoing Nathan's question - where does this get taken next?

I suggest opening up bug on libopensync, add the patches against the
current spec file(s) that fix the API, bump Epoch tag and do any the
required Obsoletes/Provides.  Has Andreas already provided the
necessary modifications to the spec files that would do all this?

Then post the link to the bug here and request people in the
provenpackager group to apply the patches, do the rebuilds and request
rel-eng tagging (assuming they get done in time for the f11-beta).
Since Andreas has already given the node for rebuilds to be done in
his absence, this should be OK.

Rinse and repeat for all the affected packages.  If Andreas owns all
the affected packages, one bug should suffice as he will be Cc'ed on
all changes, however if there are affected packages not owned by him
(e.g. osmo, see: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479954),
they probably should have their own bugs.

Alex