"Synergy+ and Synergy have now combined efforts. Visit the new Synergy website." "Synergy+ and Synergy have now merged! However, we'll still be using the old synergy-plus source code repository and mailing lists (just because there's no reason to migrate away)." They're using the name "Synergy" now again. New joint website: http://synergy-foss.org/
At this point, though, the synergy-plus ebuild is still the latest stable version. Preparing for the migration, or even just joining "synergy" and "synergy-plus" into a single "synergy" package would probably be prudent. If you visit http://synergy-foss.org/pm/projects/synergy/tabs/download (the download page for the new synergy site), you can see that the latest stable and the "legacy" versions still link to the same old files on google code for synergy-plus versions and sourceforge for synergy versions, so the old ebuilds can be kept as-is, if that's desirable.
Just to clarify, I meant the ebuilds for the old versions can be kept as-is (and still function properly).
Sorry for the triple post, but also of note is the fact that "qsynergy" (a gui for configuration) is also now part of the same project, and will be distributed along with the next stable and is already part of the current codebase.
Related issue upstream: http://synergy-foss.org/pm/issues/2708 (rebranding Synergy+ to Synergy) Also, 1.3.6 is officially released.
I'm really sick of thinking of more things I wanted to say a little too late. I need to learn to wait to hit "Commit" here. The URL for the source package is http://synergy.googlecode.com/files/synergy-1.3.6-Source.tar.gz (not listed explicitly on the download page, but the file is there, just like 1.3.4).
Created attachment 261649 [details] Ebuild for the newly merged synergy project
Not only did they merge, they also released a new version, using cmake.
The synergy-1.3.6 version is in tree now. So how should we proceed with synergy-plus? Treeclean or close this bug?
I'd say package move from synergy-plus to synergy, and remove synergy-plus.
*** Bug 349368 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #9) > I'd say package move from synergy-plus to synergy, and remove synergy-plus. When bug 391393 is done.
May be will have to remove qsynergy from portage tree too (if removing synergy-1.3.1) As signaled in Comment 3, qsynergy is part of the project now.
(In reply to comment #12) > May be will have to remove qsynergy from portage tree too (if removing > synergy-1.3.1) > > As signaled in Comment 3, qsynergy is part of the project now. Maybe, when does it ACTUALLY start including it? Bug 357505 indicated that it was in 1.4.x ?
Comment 12 Yes, sorry I didn't check before post But this allowed me to see that current stable version is 1.3.8
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/updates/1Q-2012?rev=1.1&view=markup looks like this can be closed as Cardoe moved the package over
(In reply to comment #15) > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/updates/1Q-2012?rev=1.1&view=markup > > looks like this can be closed as Cardoe moved the package over Cool, now Doug gets to take care of qsynergy and the fact that the proper version isn't stabilized on all arches yet. Thanks for cleaning up after your commit, Doug.
(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/updates/1Q-2012?rev=1.1&view=markup > > > > looks like this can be closed as Cardoe moved the package over > > Cool, now Doug gets to take care of qsynergy and the fact that the proper > version isn't stabilized on all arches yet. Thanks for cleaning up after your > commit, Doug. Jeremy, slow the attitude train down for a second. Where the issue with stabilization? synergy-plus was only stable on amd64 and x86, synergy has newer versions stable on both those arches. synergy-plus was never keyworded on any other arch than amd64 and x86. qsynergy does improperly still depend on synergy-plus, however that doesn't break Portage and doesn't prevent someone from emerging qsynergy. So what exactly are you looking for out of me?
(There was no attitude present in my previous comment) (In reply to comment #17): I guess we wait for bug 391393 to treeclean qsynergy? I never got a straight answer. (comment #13) "when does synergy ACTUALLY start including qsynergy?" Now, 1) close this bug, 2) open stablereq for 1.4.x, 3) remove/mask qsynergy
