libsyncml

[Nathanael D. Noblet]

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:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479954#c7
>>
>> 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