Here are the scripts I've created for building and packaging 389 for various debian and ubuntu distributions.
Current targets are etch,lenny,squeeze,karmic and lucid.
I haven't tested these extensively, but they all seem to build/install and return proper results when running test ldapsearch's.
One slight note, on any target newer then etch, you'll likely need to sym link /usr/lib/nss/libsofttokn3.so to /usr/lib or the building of mozldap will break and the directory server will not function aswell. Not sure why that is yet.
Give them a whirl and let me know how they work for you.
Ryan Braun Aviation and Defence Services Division Chief Information Officer Branch, Environment Canada CIV: 204-833-2500x2625 CSN: 257-2625 FAX: 204-833-2558 E-Mail: Ryan.Braun@ec.gc.ca
Ryan Braun [ADS] wrote:
Here are the scripts I've created for building and packaging 389 for various debian and ubuntu distributions.
Current targets are etch,lenny,squeeze,karmic and lucid.
I haven't tested these extensively, but they all seem to build/install and return proper results when running test ldapsearch's.
One slight note, on any target newer then etch, you'll likely need to sym link /usr/lib/nss/libsofttokn3.so to /usr/lib or the building of mozldap will break and the directory server will not function aswell. Not sure why that is yet.
Thanks. I'll note that current 389-ds-base master branch in git can use openldap instead of mozldap (configure .... --with-openldap) if you'd rather not mess with mozldap
Give them a whirl and let me know how they work for you.
Ryan Braun Aviation and Defence Services Division Chief Information Officer Branch, Environment Canada CIV: 204-833-2500x2625 CSN: 257-2625 FAX: 204-833-2558 E-Mail: Ryan.Braun@ec.gc.ca
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
On October 5, 2010 05:09:55 pm Rich Megginson wrote:
One slight note, on any target newer then etch, you'll likely need to sym link /usr/lib/nss/libsofttokn3.so to /usr/lib or the building of mozldap will break and the directory server will not function aswell. Not sure why that is yet.
Thanks. I'll note that current 389-ds-base master branch in git can use openldap instead of mozldap (configure .... --with-openldap) if you'd rather not mess with mozldap
Oh wow, I haven't looked at the ./configure opts for the ds in sometime. Back to the drawing board :) I haven't had any issue with mozldap, but the less packages I have to hand maintain the better.
Ryan Braun Aviation and Defence Services Division Chief Information Officer Branch, Environment Canada CIV: 204-833-2500x2625 CSN: 257-2625 FAX: 204-833-2558 E-Mail: Ryan.Braun@ec.gc.ca
Ryan Braun [ADS] wrote:
On October 5, 2010 05:09:55 pm Rich Megginson wrote:
One slight note, on any target newer then etch, you'll likely need to sym link /usr/lib/nss/libsofttokn3.so to /usr/lib or the building of mozldap will break and the directory server will not function aswell. Not sure why that is yet.
Thanks. I'll note that current 389-ds-base master branch in git can use openldap instead of mozldap (configure .... --with-openldap) if you'd rather not mess with mozldap
Oh wow, I haven't looked at the ./configure opts for the ds in sometime.
There is preliminary support in 389-ds-base 1.2.6 - code in git master (1.2.7 alpha) has much better support, and for the other components too - 389-adminutil, 389-admin
Back to the drawing board :) I haven't had any issue with mozldap, but the less packages I have to hand maintain the better.
The ldif stuff will not work without some patches for openldap 2.4.22 and later. If you're interested, I can point you to the patches.
Ryan Braun Aviation and Defence Services Division Chief Information Officer Branch, Environment Canada CIV: 204-833-2500x2625 CSN: 257-2625 FAX: 204-833-2558 E-Mail: Ryan.Braun@ec.gc.ca -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
Hi all,
I'm trying to collect all the people interested in the ubuntu/debian packaging. As of now I'm in touch with one of the debian packager too.
Probably this list is the best place where to share our infos..
@Ryan: thx for your files: I'm going to test it!
@Rich: if the --openldap is not fully functional or needs some patches still not included in ubuntu, maybe it's better to remain on mozldap...
Peace, R.
On Thursday 07 October 2010 14:28:05 Roberto Polli wrote:
@Ryan: thx for your files: I'm going to test it!
at a glance it worked nicely, I'll investigate into every single file ;)
Peace, R.
Roberto Polli wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to collect all the people interested in the ubuntu/debian packaging. As of now I'm in touch with one of the debian packager too.
Probably this list is the best place where to share our infos..
@Ryan: thx for your files: I'm going to test it!
@Rich: if the --openldap is not fully functional or needs some patches still not included in ubuntu, maybe it's better to remain on mozldap...
Yeah - the other thing is that openldap on debian uses gnutls?
Peace, R.
Hi all,
I'd create an git repository with Ryan scripts. they are great and really easy to understand!
Moreover, as those scripts have some parts in common, I'm refactoring them using functions, tmpfiles and some further bash commodities..
I'm trying to involve other people too.
@richm: if for Ryan is fine, can you create a git repository to let people collaborate about them?
@ryan: feel free to chat me on robipolli@gmail.com for discussing on that issue
Otherwise I'll create a yet-another-debian-scripts-for-389-org repository on sourceforge.
Let me know+Peace, R.
Roberto Polli wrote:
Hi all,
I'd create an git repository with Ryan scripts. they are great and really easy to understand!
Moreover, as those scripts have some parts in common, I'm refactoring them using functions, tmpfiles and some further bash commodities..
I'm trying to involve other people too.
@richm: if for Ryan is fine, can you create a git repository to let people collaborate about them?
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want these scripts to go into 389 upstream? And use the 389 git repo for this? Is that how it works in the debian world? For fedora, for example, all of the build scripts/spec files are kept in the fedora repo - pkgs.fedoraproject.org - how does debian handle it?
@ryan: feel free to chat me on robipolli@gmail.com for discussing on that issue
Otherwise I'll create a yet-another-debian-scripts-for-389-org repository on sourceforge.
Well, you don't have to use sourceforge - github is nice. But yes, there should be an official place for debian build scripts - either they should go into the debian build system, or into 389 upstream. I'd rather have the former.
Let me know+Peace, R.
On Thursday 07 October 2010 17:17:35 Rich Megginson wrote:
Do you want these scripts to go into 389 upstream?
not now ;)
I wish we could create such a community to support and maintain in QA all the needed debian scripts.
But yes, there should be an official place for debian build scripts
There are plenty of part-time 389 packager for debian, ubuntu & co, everyone with his own repo. I tried to contact a lot of people these days, and only one responded...
- either they
should go into the debian build system, or into 389 upstream. I'd rather have the former.
Afaik all the packaging job is done outside the 389 community: to me this is wrong.
The sabayon packaging taught me that distro-specific issues can improve the knowledge of the software.
So the point: we need one "official" place tied to the 389 community. The repository doesn't have to be the 389 one, but anyway should be something more official.
Glad to hear from you+Peace, R.
PS: About the repos: I still manage several project on sourceforge, so I don't have to create another account.
Roberto Polli wrote:
On Thursday 07 October 2010 17:17:35 Rich Megginson wrote:
Do you want these scripts to go into 389 upstream?
not now ;)
I wish we could create such a community to support and maintain in QA all the needed debian scripts.
But yes, there should be an official place for debian build scripts
There are plenty of part-time 389 packager for debian, ubuntu & co, everyone with his own repo. I tried to contact a lot of people these days, and only one responded...
- either they
should go into the debian build system, or into 389 upstream. I'd rather have the former.
Afaik all the packaging job is done outside the 389 community: to me this is wrong.
It would be nice for the debian maintainer of these packages to also be a 389 community member. But this seems to be quite a common problem - the upstream project developers have no presence in the distro packaging.
The sabayon packaging taught me that distro-specific issues can improve the knowledge of the software.
So the point: we need one "official" place tied to the 389 community. The repository doesn't have to be the 389 one, but anyway should be something more official.
IMHO, the "official" place is either the 389 repo or the debian package repo. Anything else will lead to fragmentation, neglect, and bit rot.
Why can't these scripts go into the debian package repo? Are they different than the scripts used to produce the official debian packages?
Glad to hear from you+Peace, R.
PS: About the repos: I still manage several project on sourceforge, so I don't have to create another account.
On Thursday 07 October 2010 17:58:24 Rich Megginson wrote:
IMHO, the "official" place is either the 389 repo or the debian package repo.
The official debian distribution doesn't support 389: there are some extensions like EPEL repository. The 389 is in one of these named alioth. I'm in touch with that guy, but he has few time to maintain.
Somebody forked that debian repo to create Ubuntu packages: the differences are in package dependencies like libc & co.
Why can't these scripts go into the debian package repo?
I'm investigating in how to create officially supported package for debian. My aim is to create something that would fit both on debian and ubuntu: that should manage dependencies and versions.
So I thought that an automatic script repo should fit for all...
Are they different than the scripts used to produce the official debian packages?
I don't think so. The QA procedures are different: ubuntu packages need to be gpg-signed by an authorized key and put on one PPA (personal repos).
The debian race may be different...
Today I'll publish on sourceforge Ryan scripts and start working on that...
Keep in touch+Peace, R:
Roberto Polli wrote:
On Thursday 07 October 2010 17:58:24 Rich Megginson wrote:
IMHO, the "official" place is either the 389 repo or the debian package repo.
The official debian distribution doesn't support 389: there are some extensions like EPEL repository. The 389 is in one of these named alioth. I'm in touch with that guy, but he has few time to maintain.
Somebody forked that debian repo to create Ubuntu packages: the differences are in package dependencies like libc & co.
Why can't these scripts go into the debian package repo?
I'm investigating in how to create officially supported package for debian. My aim is to create something that would fit both on debian and ubuntu: that should manage dependencies and versions.
So I thought that an automatic script repo should fit for all...
Are they different than the scripts used to produce the official debian packages?
I don't think so. The QA procedures are different: ubuntu packages need to be gpg-signed by an authorized key and put on one PPA (personal repos).
The debian race may be different...
Today I'll publish on sourceforge Ryan scripts and start working on that...
Ok. There is precedent for having a debian packaging subdirectory in the upstream code. I think Samba does this for some projects. I'm willing to add this to the 389 upstream repos. This will still require a Fedora CLA in order to contribute to the 389 upstream. Also note that each package has its own source repository - 389-ds-base, 389-admin, 389-adminutil, etc. etc. - each one would have a debian packaging subdirectory which would contain scripts and makefiles to build a debian package for just that component. Also note that there is no source repository for 389-ds since it is just a "meta" package in Fedora/EPEL and may be replaced by a package group at some point.
Keep in touch+Peace, R:
El 07/10/10 07:58, Roberto Polli escribió:
Hi all,
I'm trying to collect all the people interested in the ubuntu/debian packaging. As of now I'm in touch with one of the debian packager too.
Probably this list is the best place where to share our infos..
@Ryan: thx for your files: I'm going to test it!
@Rich: if the --openldap is not fully functional or needs some patches still not included in ubuntu, maybe it's better to remain on mozldap...
Peace, R.
Hi all!
Maybe you could be interested about this Debian Alioth project
http://pkg-fedora-ds.alioth.debian.org/
On Thursday 07 October 2010 16:50:43 Kevin Zambrano wrote:
Maybe you could be interested about this Debian Alioth project http://pkg-fedora-ds.alioth.debian.org/
I'm in touch with the maintainer.
As of now there are no such script cool like the Ryan one: while Ryan retrieve files from 389org website and packages them, debian archive needs to pull changes from svn and then rebuild.
Anyway their work on debian/* files seems to be better, including some customisation for debian/ubuntu.
I wish we'll be able to join all our efforts!
Peace, R.
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org