[needs-packaging] 389 Directory Server for Ubuntu

Bug #27463 reported by Blair Zajac on 2005-12-22
124
This bug affects 15 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Debian
Fix Released
Unknown
389-ds-base (Ubuntu)
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

It would be great if we could get native Ubuntu/Debian builds for
389 Directory Server, now that all the components of it are
reported to be open sourced.

http://directory.fedoraproject.org/

Blair

There is a debian ITP by Sven Herzberg here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386206
I'm sure Sven would appreciate any help he can get. :-)

description: updated
Caroline Ford (secretlondon) wrote :

Thanks for your report. Your idea might get more attention and have
the possibility of being implemented if you would submit a
specification for this.

You should first check whether it already exists at the Ubuntu specs
page (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+specs) in Launchpad. If
that is the case, feel free to contact the drafter of that spec about
your comments/suggestions. Otherwise you can start writing a spec
following the steps described in
        https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeatureSpecifications.

Caroline Ford (secretlondon) wrote :

I'm closing this old bug, it's not really a bug and nothing has happened here or in Debian.

Philipp Kaluza (pixelpapst) wrote :

Nothing has happened here, that is correct. As for debian, the ITP is just one month old, so I guess that claim is not really fair. :-)

And yes, it's not really a bug, but a wishlist item. Does Malone not track these ? I guess I overestimated the scope of launchpad ?

What would a "feature specification" buy more than an ITP ?

Andrew Mitchell (ajmitch) wrote :

It is being worked on, and should make it into gutsy

Philipp Kaluza (pixelpapst) wrote :

Thank you for your good work. :-)
Any chance of commiting the existing packaging work into the pkg-fedora-ds repository sometime soon ?

Philipp Kaluza (pixelpapst) wrote :

Quick note to others watching this: the update on the debian side is just due to the ITP being auto-closed after one year.
As the pkg-fedora-ds repository is also still empty, i guess the current plan is to wait for upstream to roll a release of the now autotooled trunk.
(If anybody has any preliminary packaging i'd be happy to test.)

Philipp Kaluza (pixelpapst) wrote :

The package name should possibly be changed to "dirsrv", as this is the autoconf @PACKAGE_NAME@ that will be used after the next release.

Tessa (unit3) wrote :

This obviously didn't make it into gutsy, so can someone provide a status update as to what's currently happening with it? I think a lot of Ubuntu server users like me would love to have this package available. :)

Philipp Kaluza (pixelpapst) wrote :

FDS 1.1 Beta has been released at the end of november, with all the FHS, automake and other infrastructure changes everybody was waiting for. However, Debian and Ubuntu packaging efforts for this software seem to have stalled completely by now. Maybe this new release (or 1.1 final) will revive interest to package it, who knows. :)

Michele Baldessari (michele) wrote :

I've revived the packaging efforts for FDS and I have a pretty much working set of packages. If anyone is interested please join over to the corresponding alioth project http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-fedora-ds/

Everything is in svn ATM (svrcore, mozldap, libmozilla-ldap-perl, fds) and can be built with svn-buildpackage.

Tessa (unit3) wrote :

Great news. I can't find any concise directions in the repo or on your project page about what packages to build and what order, though. It might be handy if you guys would set up a private repo with some test packages for people to try out, or at least a quick set of directions of what to build. :)

On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 22:13 +0000, Graeme Humphries wrote:
> Great news. I can't find any concise directions in the repo or on your
> project page about what packages to build and what order, though. It
> might be handy if you guys would set up a private repo with some test
> packages for people to try out, or at least a quick set of directions of
> what to build. :)

Hi Graeme,

here is a short guide on how to build the whole thing:
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianFDSPackaging

let me know if you spot any issues with it or if you need any help.

regards,
Michele

I have built these packages and made an APT repository available. Instructions for adding this repository to your system are available here: http://fedorads.pearsoncomputing.net/

Bugs should be reported here: http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net

Hi Tim,

FDS 1.2.0 is already out, would you please update your port to 1.2.0? Also the next ubuntu LTS release is 10.4, which Canonical doesn't like introduce new features in, so if we want FDS to make it into the next LTS release, we need to get it into 9.10.

Therefore we need to submit to revu.ubuntuwire.net very soon.

Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) wrote :

I am currently uploading the new release to a PPA here:
https://launchpad.net/~kb9vqf/+archive/389directoryserver

Instructions will be updated shortly.

I will try to get this in to REVU as soon as PPA building is verified. I've never actually used REVU before, so we'll see how that goes... :-)

Tim

Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) wrote :

Already packaged, built, and updated to latest, just need to test build against Karmic and upload to REVU....

Changed in ubuntu:
assignee: Andrew Mitchell (ajmitch) → Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf)
Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) wrote :

Rebuild for Karmic is OK

Most packages are now available on REVU and in my PPA

A slew of new needs-packaging bugs were filed for the support packages--those packages are also up on REVU:
Bug 382261
Bug 382263
Bug 382264
Bug 382302
Bug 382317
Bug 382320
Bug 382323

Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) wrote :

All packages are now up on REVU and are built for both Intrepid and Karmic in my PPA.

Hopefully the approval process can now start and we can get the Fedora Directory Server into Karmic!

Changed in ubuntu:
status: Confirmed → In Progress
Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) wrote :

Debian bug has expired

Changed in debian:
importance: Unknown → Undecided
status: Fix Released → New
Qichang Liang (kcleung-users) wrote :

Dear Ubuntu-server and Ubuntu-desktop:

If you are also a REVU reviewer, would you please have a quick look at the new Fedora Directory Server package for ubuntu?

Blueprint:

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/fedora-directory-server-inclusion

The Fedora Directory server is the most advanced directory server in Linux. Its functionalty supersedes LDAP and makes the sysadmin's life much easier when managing computer resource / access for large networks. The absence of FDS in Ubuntu was (and still is) a major factor discouraging Ubuntu uptake.

This package is sitting in REVU and needs urgent review in order to make it to 9.10 (Karmic). It is much better to introduce FDS in Karmic than directly to the next LTS!

Tessa (unit3) wrote :

I definitely agree about introducing into Karmic. That way there'll be some wider usage and testing before the next LTS.

Tessa (unit3) wrote :

Tim:

Is it possible to get packages for jaunty into your repo? I'm getting errors trying to rebuild the packages on jaunty/amd64. It freaks out and generates a ton of errors trying to compile this:

/bin/bash ./libtool --tag=CC --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -DBUILD_NUM=\"2009.161.2056\" -I./ldap/include -I./ldap/servers/slapd -I./include -I. -DLOCALSTATEDIR="\"/var\"" -DSYSCONFDIR="\"/etc\"" -DLIBDIR="\"/usr/lib\"" -DBINDIR="\"/usr/bin\"" -DDATADIR="\"/usr/share\"" -DDOCDIR="\"/usr/share/doc/dirsrv\"" -DSBINDIR="\"/usr/sbin\"" -DPLUGINDIR="\"/usr/lib/dirsrv/plugins\"" -DTEMPLATEDIR="\"/usr/share/dirsrv/data\"" -I/usr/include/mozldap -I/usr/include/nspr -I/usr/include/nss -I/usr/include/nss -I/usr/include/nspr -I/usr/include/nspr -I/usr/include/sasl -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/nspr -I/usr/include/nss -Wall -pipe -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -MT ldap/servers/slapd/libslapd_la-add.lo -MD -MP -MF ldap/servers/slapd/.deps/libslapd_la-add.Tpo -c -o ldap/servers/slapd/libslapd_la-add.lo `test -f 'ldap/servers/slapd/add.c' || echo './'`ldap/servers/slapd/add.c

Qichang Liang (kcleung-users) wrote :

Graeme:

The reason why fedora-directory-server_1.2.0-2.dsc doesn't build on your jaunty system is because it relies on many libraries (such as libsvrcore-dev) which are also along Tim's upload.

So you really need to test build these libraries first, then after they are built, include Tim's PPA:

deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/kb9vqf/389directoryserver/ubuntu karmic main

as an alternate source (OTHERMIRROR in .pbuilderrc)

in your jaunty pbuilder environment.

Don't worry, Grame, I've tried and it builds perfectly. I hope the REVU team can approve the packages as soon so possible so that it can get into Karmic Alpha 3

REVU:

Would you please review the Fedora Directory Server packages as soon as possible so that it can get into Karmic Alpha 3?

Ubuntu-Release:

Our Fedora Directory Server packages are ready and it would be great to introduce Fedora Directory Server into Karmic. Sysadmins find FDS really helpful in managing resource accesses for large corporate networks

Tessa (unit3) wrote :

Hey Kai-Cheung,

Sorry I wasn't more explicit, but I *did* rebuild the required libraries from Tim's repo for jaunty. It still doesn't build properly for me. ;)

I suspect that perhaps the build-deps on the packages aren't totally accurate, since I'm building on a fresh jaunty install inside a VM, and so I don't have any dev packages other than what "apt-get build-dep" pulls in.

G

Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) wrote :

I will try to build the Jaunty packages ASAP, but first there is a potential REVU issue--they seem to want .orig.tar.gz files, and I need to go through and test build from original sources. That process might take some time, and I won't be able to get to the Jaunty packages until that is complete.

The build-deps may not be 100% correct for the Intrepid packages, but Karmic should be pretty close. Remember that the PPA build systems start with a blank system and pull in the build-dep packages, so if it builds under Intrepid and Karmic that means that there is a different dependency somewhere that is only needed under Jaunty.

Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) wrote :

Hey, sorry for the lack of progress on this bug, but my servers were fried by a lightning-related EMP on Friday (June 19) and therefore I've been unable to do anything since then. ( more details are on a temporary website at http://apt.pearsoncomputing.net )

However, before that time, it was decided that at the very least the packages need to be renamed to reflect the change from Fedora directory server to 389 directory server. That is my top priority--once I can get at my servers again, that is!!

Tim

On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 22:26 +0000, Timothy Pearson wrote:
> Hey, sorry for the lack of progress on this bug, but my servers were
> fried by a lightning-related EMP on Friday (June 19) and therefore I've
> been unable to do anything since then. ( more details are on a temporary
> website at http://apt.pearsoncomputing.net )
>
> However, before that time, it was decided that at the very least the
> packages need to be renamed to reflect the change from Fedora directory
> server to 389 directory server. That is my top priority--once I can get
> at my servers again, that is!!

Why have you never requested to work on the upstream debian packaging
(i.e. me)? Having everyone working on his/her own package is such a
waste of effort and time (be it debian or ubuntu).

regards,
Michele

Hi Michele,

I sent you an Email--hopefully I can help with your packaging. You're right, it does not make sense to be maintaining two separate versions.

Thanks!

Tim

I had a chat with David Sugar (I believe he is a staff member from
Canonical). He suggests us to form a dedicated team to set up and
maintain the 389 directory server.

I have just done that and now we have got a new team called "Ubuntu 389
Directory Server Team"

https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-389-directory-server

I have added:

Timothy Pearson (the Ubuntu packager)
David Sugar (Canonical staff(?), also a REVU reviewer)
Michele Baldessari (Debian 389 maintainer)

to this team.

Also this team now has a centralized ppa. So it would be nice if we can
port Timothy's ppa to the team ppa, with the correct name changes etc. At
the same time, Michele can make sure that this ppa compiles in the Debian
testing suite and get 389 accepted in Debian as well. In this way, the
team ppa will centralize the development of both Ubuntu and Debian port at
once.

I have just applied for an email list for this team and it is waiting for
approval. David, would you be able to approve the team email list?

Cheers,

kcleung

P.S. Apart from the package name changes, we should transfer the
"maintainer" of the packages from Timothy Pearson to "Ubuntu 389 Directory
Server Team" so that this project is now managed by the whole team.

Quoting Timothy Pearson <email address hidden>:

> Hi Michele,
>
> I sent you an Email--hopefully I can help with your packaging. You're
> right, it does not make sense to be maintaining two separate versions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tim
>
> --
> [needs-packaging] Fedora Directory Server for Ubuntu
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/27463
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>

We have formed the Ubuntu 389 directory server team and this project now becomes team-managed

Changed in ubuntu:
assignee: Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) → Ubuntu 389 Directory Server Team (ubuntu-389-directory-server)
Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) wrote :

I am currently working with upstream Debian on this...hopefully things will progress rapidly now.

I am going to fill the ppa with at least initial packages based on the original ones from Timothy starting tomorrow evening. At least it will let people test them. If we get this into Debian first, then it could get into Karmic as a merge request.

That's great! Please make coordination with David sugar and make good use
of the Ubuntu 389 server project team PPA. You are also now one of the
administrators so should have enough privilege to manipulate the team PPA.

After launchpad approves our team email list, communication will be
easier. But by the mean time, just say everything on this bug list

Quoting Timothy Pearson <email address hidden>:

> I am currently working with upstream Debian on this...hopefully things
> will progress rapidly now.
>
> --
> [needs-packaging] Fedora Directory Server for Ubuntu
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/27463
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
> 389 Directory Server Team, which is a bug assignee.
>
> Status in Ubuntu: In Progress
> Status in Debian GNU/Linux: New
>
> Bug description:
> It would be great if we could get native Ubuntu/Debian builds for
> Fedora Directory Server, now that all the components of it are
> reported to be open sourced.
>
> http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page
>
> Blair
>
>

Sure!

David,

I'm currently running a build from the REVU packages in the PPA; if all goes well you shouldn't have to copy any of the Karmic packages and our versioning will end up being very similar to official.

Tim

Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) on 2009-06-29
description: updated
summary: - [needs-packaging] Fedora Directory Server for Ubuntu
+ [needs-packaging] 389 Directory Server for Ubuntu
Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) wrote :

Rebuild test is failing due to bug 392104

Changed in debian:
importance: Undecided → Unknown
status: New → Unknown
Changed in debian:
status: Unknown → New
Craig Box (craig.box) wrote :

Any recent activity? It seems 389 didn't make it into Karmic, and the last builds were from June 2009. I see there's a new upstream release (1.2.5) and I may have a go at building .debs with the .dsc from the PPA.

Colan Schwartz (colan) wrote :

I just discovered https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FedoraDirectoryServer. There's a section entitled, "Installation of Fedora Directory Server 1.1.x under Ubuntu 9.10". The version there seems old though, as the official version is now at 1.2.6.a2.

Timo Aaltonen (tjaalton) wrote :

So things seem to have stalled somewhat?

How about creating a collab-maint git repo on alioth.debian.org, and continue the packaging effort there? Upstream uses git now, and alioth is a better place for collaborating with Debian anyway (also because lp doesn't support git).

Timothy Pearson (kb9vqf) wrote :

Yes they have; my efforts have been focused on the Trinity project lately. The packaging is still on revu for anyone to pull down and modify.

Timo Aaltonen (tjaalton) wrote :

Apparently the packaging on the pkg-fedora-ds svn repo on alioth is quite fresh, but I bet Michele would certainly like some help getting them ready for inclusion. The repository also has packages for freeipa, but they're rather old and need to be updated to 1.9.0.pre3.

Michele Baldessari (michele) wrote :

So I went ahead and set up some pbuilders for maverick (amd64 and i386). For anyone that is interested in testing the 389 Directory Server please add the following apt line to your sources.list:
deb http://acksyn.org/ubuntu sid main

To install the 389DS server just "apt-get install dirsrv". To set it up run "setup-ds"

Feedback, bug reports here http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fedora-ds-maintainers/

Work is proceeding on the admin server components (apt-get install dirsrv-admin; setup-ds-admin) and on the console (not done yet)

Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

Reviewing needs-packaging bug reports I have concluded that this bug is likely a duplicate of bug 376370. It'd be great if you could help consolidate these bug reports by performing the following actions.

1. Examine both bug reports to determine if they are actually duplicates.
2. Determine which bug report is more complete - a more complete bug report will have a status of Confirmed, Triaged or In Progress, may be assigned to someone or may possess a bug watch.
3. Mark the other bug report a duplicate of the complete one by clicking 'Mark as duplicate' on the right hand side of the bug page.

Thanks for helping out!

tags: added: likely-dup
P-rb-paulo (p-rb-paulo) on 2011-05-20
Changed in ubuntu:
status: In Progress → Opinion
Jonathan Marsden (jmarsden) wrote :

Why was the status of this bug changed to opinion?

I though it was expected that changes of status were accompanied by a comment explaining why the change was made?

Timo Aaltonen (tjaalton) on 2012-01-03
Changed in ubuntu:
status: Opinion → In Progress
Justin Chudgar (justinzane) wrote :

We should package the LdapImport script from http://wiki.babel.com.au/index.php?area=Linux_Projects&page=LdapImport#toc1 as it is one of the Fedora recommended tools to migrate from other LDAP servers or /etc/passwd files. I've tested it importing from /etc/passwd|shadow|group and it works very well with 389.

If it is already done, doh! If you want me to do it, let me know. Seems that in addition to the script files, the following are necessary:
- libnet-ldap-perl, libnet-dns-perl, liblog-log4perl-perl, liblog-dispatch-perl

Timo Aaltonen (tjaalton) wrote :
Download full text (6.9 KiB)

Fixed in precise:

389-ds-base (1.2.10.2-0ubuntu1) precise; urgency=low

  * Pull from unreleased debian branch. (LP: #27463)

389-ds-base (1.2.10.2-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low

  * New upstream release.
  * watch: Fix the url.
  * patches/remove_license_prompt: Dropped, included upstream.
  * patches/default_user: Refreshed.
  * control: Change the VCS header to point to the git repository.
  * control: Rename last remnants of Fedora to 389.
  * changelog, control: Be consistent with the naming; renamed the source
    to just '389-ds-base', which matches upstream tarball naming.
  * control: Wrap Depends.
  * compat, control: Bump compat to 9, and debhelper build-dep to (>= 9).
  * rules: Switch to dh.
  * Move dirsrv.lintian to dirsrv.lintian-overrides, adjust dirsrv.install.
  * *.dirs: Clean up.
  * control: Build-depend on dh-autoreconf, drop duplicate bdeps.
  * Fold dirsrv-tools into the main package.
  * Build against libldap2-dev (>= 2.4.28).
  * Rename binary package to 389-ds-base.
  * -dev.install: Install the pkgconfig file.
  * Add format-security.diff to fix FTBFS with current hardening flags.
  * rules: Enable PIE hardening.
  * Add a default file, currently sets LD_BIND_NOW=1.
  * control: 'dbgen' uses old perl libs, add libperl4-corelibs-perl
    dependency to 389-ds-base.
  * rules: Add --fail-missing for dh_install, remove files not needed
    and make sure to install the rest.
  * rules, control: Fix the installation name of ds-logpipe.py, add
    python dependency to 389-ds-base..
  * libns-dshttpd is internal to the server, ship it in 389-ds-base.
  * Rename libdirsrv{-dev,0} -> 389-ds-base-{dev,libs}, includes only
    libslapd and headers for external plugin development.
  * control: Breaks/Replaces old libdirsrv-dev/libdirsrv0/dirsrv.
  * Drop hyphen_used_as_minus, applied upstream.
  * copyright: Use DEP5 format.
  * Cherry-pick upstream commit ee320163c6 to get rid of unnecessary
    and non-free MIB's from the tree, and build a dfsg compliant tarball.
  * lintian-overrides: Update, create one for -libs.
  * Fix the initscript to create the lockdir, and refactor code into separate
    functions.
  * Drop obsolete entries from copyright, and make it lintian clean.
  * debian/po: Refer to the correct file after rename.
  * control: Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.3, no changes.
  * postinst: Drop unused 'lastversion'.
  * patches: Add DEP3 compliant headers.

389-directory-server (1.2.6.1-5) unstable; urgency=low

  * Removed db_stop from dirsrv.postinst
  * Fix short description in libdirsrv0-dbg

389-directory-server (1.2.6.1-4) unstable; urgency=low

  * Make libicu dep dependent on dpkg-vendor

389-directory-server (1.2.6.1-3) unstable; urgency=low

  * Remove dirsrv user and group in postrm
  * Clean up postrm and postinst

389-directory-server (1.2.6.1-2) unstable; urgency=low

  * Fix QUILT_STAMPFN

389-directory-server (1.2.6.1-1) unstable; urgency=low

  * New upstream

389-directory-server (1.2.6-2) unstable; urgency=low

  * Update my email address

389-directory-server (1.2.6-1) unstable; urgency=low

  * New upstream
  * s/Fedo...

Read more...

affects: ubuntu → 389-ds-base (Ubuntu)
Changed in 389-ds-base (Ubuntu):
assignee: Ubuntu 389 Directory Server (ubuntu-389-directory-server) → nobody
status: In Progress → Fix Released
Changed in debian:
status: New → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.