Bug 161799 - Backup conduit needs updating for new pilot-link API
Backup conduit needs updating for new pilot-link API
Status: CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gnome-pilot (Show other bugs)
4
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Matthew Barnes
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-06-27 10:19 EDT by Mark Adams
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-10-02 13:02:12 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Update backup conduit to new pilot-link API (3.46 KB, patch)
2005-06-27 10:19 EDT, Mark Adams
no flags Details | Diff
Finish install patch change begun in gnome-pilot-2.0.10-fix_64bit.patch included in .spec file (1.40 KB, patch)
2005-06-27 10:21 EDT, Mark Adams
no flags Details | Diff
.spec file fixes for installing .conduit files in correct location (1.11 KB, patch)
2005-06-27 10:23 EDT, Mark Adams
no flags Details | Diff
Revised version of attachment 116013 which avoids pi_buffer_free (NULL) when no changes have occurred (3.50 KB, patch)
2005-06-28 18:43 EDT, Dave Malcolm
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Mark Adams 2005-06-27 10:19:02 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050524 Fedora/1.0.4-4 Firefox/1.0.4

Description of problem:
As part of fixing bug #160278 I determined that the backup conduit is unavailable in FC4.

It turns out that this is for two reasons:
1) the backup conduit was explicitly disabled in the .spec file, presumably because it hadn't been updated for the new pilot-link API
2) the patch to change the install locations for the backup and file conduits was incomplete, so neither was available once built and installed

The following patches will fix these problems. Note that they assume that the following patch which I've reported upstream has also been applied:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309130


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
gnome-pilot-2.0.13-2

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
Notice that backup conduit is unavailable in conduits list.


Additional info:
Comment 1 Mark Adams 2005-06-27 10:19:47 EDT
Created attachment 116013 [details]
Update backup conduit to new pilot-link API
Comment 2 Mark Adams 2005-06-27 10:21:50 EDT
Created attachment 116014 [details]
Finish install patch change begun in gnome-pilot-2.0.10-fix_64bit.patch included in .spec file
Comment 3 Mark Adams 2005-06-27 10:23:46 EDT
Created attachment 116015 [details]
.spec file fixes for installing .conduit files in correct location
Comment 4 Dave Malcolm 2005-06-28 18:41:40 EDT
Many thanks for these patches.  I've been working on getting them into both FC4
updates and rawhide.

The location for .conduit files should be ${libdir}/gnome-pilot/conduits rather
than ${datadir}/gnome-pilot/conduits
This is to allow parallel installation of 32-bit and 64-bit packages that
contain conduits.  I've updated gnome-pilot and evolution to use this location,
which should be reflected in tomorrow's rawhide.

I also found a bug in attachment 116013 [details]; if there are no changes since the last
sync, the cleanup calls pi_buffer_free (NULL), which crashes gpilotd (it reads
through the buffer pointer).
I'm about to attach a slightly modified version of the patch which handles this,
which again will be going into tomorrow's rawhide.

Thanks again for all the work you've done on this.
Comment 5 Dave Malcolm 2005-06-28 18:43:34 EDT
Created attachment 116094 [details]
Revised version of attachment 116013 [details] which avoids pi_buffer_free (NULL) when no changes have occurred
Comment 6 Mark Adams 2005-06-28 19:27:53 EDT
You're welcome. As has been asked on fedora-devel-list, I'm quite curious why
the decision was made to go with the beta pilot-link.

As for the conduit files, I wasn't sure which was desired, so I just went with
expediency and put them where gnome-pilot was looking for them.

Regarding the pi_buffer_free(), I could have sworn I checked that calling it
with NULL was safe... In fact, that sure looks safe here. Are you certain you're
looking at the pre4 version? In my copy here, pi_buffer_free does an 'if (buf)'
which will catch buf == NULL.
Comment 7 Dave Malcolm 2005-06-28 20:01:28 EDT
Aha - my testing has been with pilot-link-0.12.0-0.pre2.0

I'll update my development machine now...  thanks.

Going with the beta pilot-link is now clearly a mistake.  I'm sorry about the
pain this has caused (FWIW it wasn't me who pushed it, but I didn't fight hard
enough to get it reverted, so I guess you can still blame me)
Comment 8 Mark Adams 2005-06-28 22:36:49 EDT
Glad to have that mystery solved.

As for going with the beta software, I'm personally not looking for someone to
point a finger at; I'm just really curious what the argument was for making the
move, given that even the primary developers of pilot-link have said not to ship it.

Anyways, the main thing from my perspective is just to get the functionality
working again. So thank you for being quick at working on getting new packages
together.
Comment 9 Mark Smith 2005-10-06 16:28:45 EDT
Any idea when these patches will make it into FC4 updates?  I just "yum
check-update; yum update" yesterday and this is still very broken.
Comment 11 Christian Iseli 2007-01-19 19:43:18 EST
This report targets the FC3 or FC4 products, which have now been EOL'd.

Could you please check that it still applies to a current Fedora release, and
either update the target product or close it ?

Thanks.
Comment 12 Matěj Cepl 2007-08-31 11:23:04 EDT
The distribution against which this bug was reported is no longer supported,
could you please reproduce this with the updated version of the currently
supported distribution (Fedora Core 6, or Fedora 7, or Rawhide)? If this issue
turns out to still be reproducible, please let us know in this bug report.  If
after a month's time we have not heard back from you, we will have to close this
bug as INSUFFICIENT_DATA.

Setting status to NEEDINFO, and awaiting information from the reporter.

Thanks in advance.
Comment 13 Matthew Barnes 2007-10-02 13:02:12 EDT
Closing as INSUFFICIENT_DATA.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.