| Summary: | net-fs/netatalk-2.2.0: version bump | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Timothy Miller <theosib> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Network Filesystems <net-fs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | beandog, gentoo, john, laservader, marco, robink, sflemming, steven |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: |
patch for _PATH_AFP_IPC error
ebuild (uses ipc-path.patch) |
||
|
Description
Timothy Miller
2011-01-29 22:53:25 UTC
I tend to run into some funky bugs as well, and wouldn't mind an updated version. There will be a non-beta release of Netatalk 2.2 soon. Actually, I think Netatalk 2.2.0 is officially released. Please update! I'd be happy to be able to test Netatalk 2.2.0 for Gentoo. I am strongly interested in this version as 2.2 (with AFP 3.3) is required for Lion. Mike Frysinger was kind enough to do the last couple of version bumps. Maybe we can give him a polite nudge to see if he's available. His email address is at the top of the ChangeLog for net-fs/netatalk. Mike Frysinger has sent me an email, telling me to "please open a bug with requests/enhancements". I thought that this bug here -- number 353177 -- was created to cause an update to version 2.2.0? That's how I meant it... as a request for a version bump. Then what would be the point in me filing yet another enhancement request to achieve the same thing? My request would be tagged as a duplicate, wouldn't it? I agree. There may simply be a miscommunication here. The only reason you might file a duplicate would be to bring this issue to the attention of someone who gets alerted to new bugs but who is not in the CC list of this one. 2.2 version is realy important for lion users... I compiled Netatalk 2.2.0 from the official sources and Lion's Time Machine happily stores its backups in the shared directories. An official Gentoo port would still be nice, however. (In reply to comment #11) > 2.2 version is realy important for lion users... This is true, but it is a show stopper for people who are looking to upgrade. I would like to see the new version in portage as well. I would look into it but vapier told me not to touch his stuff. Mike told me that he is not doing any actual work on Netatalk himself but is proxying someone for it. I wish that someone could be told about the great interest in an update. :-/ (In reply to comment #14) dont be such a drama queen. i merely said ask for approval on proposed commits. it's really not that hard. (In reply to comment #15) i lied. i was thinking of autofs. there's no one maintaining this. Steve Dibb indicated that he was interested in getting this done though, so i'll leave it up to him. As the original Netatalk 2.2.0 sources compiled without problems here, I think that the Gentoo port should not cause too much work. Go Steve! ;-) (In reply to comment #17) > As the original Netatalk 2.2.0 sources compiled without problems here, I think > that the Gentoo port should not cause too much work. Go Steve! ;-) I can get the sources compiled fine, but it dies on an ebuild for some reason, for me. I need to post details. Created attachment 283249 [details, diff] patch for _PATH_AFP_IPC error Building with a naively-updated ebuild results in an error "‘_PATH_AFP_IPC’ undeclared". The attached patch is identical to the upstream fix: http://netatalk.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=netatalk/netatalk;a=commitdiff;h=13ded7f9e298f706b30671e876a1482c8123b499#patch1 Created attachment 283251 [details]
ebuild (uses ipc-path.patch)
With Netatalk upgrades, a lot of things seem to change, such as database formats. I'm sure that with AFP 3.3, a lot of things have changed. Please be sure that when the upgrade is made that instructions are provided that explain what old database files to delete and other migration-related stuff. Maybe some comments on the various components and how they need to be migrated and set up to run as well. I'm sure that migration to 2.2 isn't well-documented anywhere, so perhaps a wiki page would be in order? Thanks for all the good work! netatalk-2.2.0 builds fine on my system without the patch.
We should add ">=dev-libs/libgcrypt-1.4.6" to the RDEPEND list. Without it OS X Lion users will not be able to connect to their shares.
"Optional third party software
OpenSSL and/or Libgcrypt (recommended)
Required for encrypted passwords. Without it, the password will be sent over the network in clear text. OpenSSL is needed for the older DHCAST128, Libgcrypt is needed for DHX2."
source: http://netatalk.sourceforge.net/2.2/htmldocs/installation.html#id1270928
I figured this out while setting up a second server machine. On my first server netatalk-2.1.5 is installed and I managed to fix the "Lion Issue" by adjusting afpd.conf (like mentioned in the www often).
On my new server I wasn't able to reproduce the fix and recognized missing *.so files but hadn't a clue why they were missing. Therefore I tried to switch to 2.2.0 but couldn't get it up & running, too.
Well, RTFM. I found out dev-libs/libgcrypt wasn't installed on my new server, while it was on my old one. So basically it was just luck, that 2.1.5 works with Lion on my old box, because some other packages pulled in dev-libs/libgcrypt as a dependency.
2.20 also newly has the option to build against Avahi, to automatically advertise AFP volumes. This is mentioned in the same section as the link from comment #22. This would seem to necessitate adding a "zeroconf" USE flag for netatalk-2.2.0. according to ./configure --help: "--enable-zeroconf[=DIR] enable Zeroconf support [auto]" To me this sounds like configure checks automatically whether avahi is installed already or not. I don't know what Gentoo's policy is in that case in regards to dedicated useflags. (In reply to comment #23) > 2.20 also newly has the option to build against Avahi, to automatically > advertise AFP volumes. This is mentioned in the same section as the link from > comment #22. > > This would seem to necessitate adding a "zeroconf" USE flag for netatalk-2.2.0. I think I'll just go with an avahi use flag, since it still needs that program to build against. Added netatalk-2.2.0 ebuild to the tree. Rename init script from atalk to netatalk; Restrict test; Add avahi use flag; Add GPL-2 as license Thanks a lot, Steve! |
