[breezy] gtk-gnutella reports "*** RUNNING AN OLD VERSION ***"

Have tryed that version, it doesn't work either.

In Dapper it's the same fault! Reports too old, and doesn't connect to the servers.

Additional Comment:
Heres the text from the GTK-Gnutella page:

--snip--
What does "Outdated version, please upgrade" mean?
Versions of gtk-gnutella more than one year old are banned, since they lack features that are important to the rapidly evolving gnet's health and scalability. In addition, unstable versions are banned after 90 days.
--snip--

So a beta version is about to expire 22 of January. Nothing to do with it until they release a new version, unless you get a version from cvs.

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:05:19PM -0000, Tor Harald Thorland wrote:
> Heres the text from the GTK-Gnutella page:
>
> --snip--
> What does "Outdated version, please upgrade" mean?
> Versions of gtk-gnutella more than one year old are banned, since they lack features that are important to the rapidly evolving gnet's health and scalability. In addition, unstable versions are banned after 90 days.
> --snip--
>
> So a beta version is about to expire 22 of January. Nothing to do with
> it until they release a new version, unless you get a version from cvs.

Thank you for your investigation. If I understand correctly, there
isn't much we can do, but to wait for a new upstream version. If I read
correctly, the 0.9.5 release has expired as well, so there is no
working release at all at the moment. Is this right?

I'm not feeling comfortable in uploading a random cvs snapshot. I
consider this as the last resort.

Please keep us updated on this bug.

I will!, I'll will be partially unavailiable for a couple of days, but will add a noticed here when i get some detail, or I'll see a new package. There is as far as I can see only cvs that is possible.

The bug tracking and forums at gtk-gnutella is not much in use, and I can't see eny mail adr. to get in touch.

I will report as soon as possible.

Hey Reinhard,

On Tuesday 24 January 2006 16:00, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Public bug report changed:
> https://launchpad.net/malone/bugs/6472
>
> Comment:
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:05:19PM -0000, Tor Harald Thorland wrote:
> > Heres the text from the GTK-Gnutella page:
> >
> > --snip--
> > What does "Outdated version, please upgrade" mean?
> > Versions of gtk-gnutella more than one year old are banned, since they
> > lack features that are important to the rapidly evolving gnet's health
> > and scalability. In addition, unstable versions are banned after 90 days.
> > --snip--
> >
> > So a beta version is about to expire 22 of January. Nothing to do with
> > it until they release a new version, unless you get a version from cvs.
>
> Thank you for your investigation. If I understand correctly, there
> isn't much we can do, but to wait for a new upstream version. If I read
> correctly, the 0.9.5 release has expired as well, so there is no
> working release at all at the moment. Is this right?
>
> I'm not feeling comfortable in uploading a random cvs snapshot. I
> consider this as the last resort.
>
> Please keep us updated on this bug.

If debian doesn't have a new version, and real upstream is not responding
anymore, we shouldn't break UVF for a very questionable package like
gtk-gnutella.

My POV :)

\sh

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 03:09:06PM -0000, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> If debian doesn't have a new version, and real upstream is not responding
> anymore, we shouldn't break UVF for a very questionable package like
> gtk-gnutella.

from what I read from the mailing list, upstream is not dead, but they
want users to test the current cvs for the upcoming release.

What makes gtk-gnutella questionable? I don't consider it high
priority, but not questionable..

hi,

On Tuesday 24 January 2006 16:24, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Public bug report changed:
> https://launchpad.net/malone/bugs/6472
>
> Comment:
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 03:09:06PM -0000, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> > If debian doesn't have a new version, and real upstream is not responding
> > anymore, we shouldn't break UVF for a very questionable package like
> > gtk-gnutella.
>
> from what I read from the mailing list, upstream is not dead, but they
> want users to test the current cvs for the upcoming release.
>
> What makes gtk-gnutella questionable? I don't consider it high
> priority, but not questionable..

What I mean is, that breaking UVF for a CVS version should not be
considered :)

I think we should wait for debian, and hoping that there is a new version
coming out before feature freeze :)

\sh

GOOD NEWS!

24 January 2006, Version 0.96 Released

Version 0.96 is a stable release. It is now mandatory to use this version, since all previous versions have expired meaning they are going to be banned by all new gtk-gnutella clients and will no longer contact the Gnutella web caches.

I'm currently trying to reach the debian maintainer to provide an updated package. stay tuned.

? There is already a deb package on the gtk.gnutella sourceforge page.

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gtk-gnutella/GTK1_gtk-gnutella_0.96.0-1_i386.deb?download

It is a GTK1 package so the UI doesn't look that nice, but it is working.

If you don't like the GTK1 version, why not get the GTK2 version? http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gtk-gnutella/GTK2_gtk-gnutella_0.96.0-1_i386.deb?download

Debian has an updated package. I just requested that package to be synced from debian. I expect this to happen in a few days.

Just to keep you informed

Another Good News

22 February 2006, Version 0.96.1 Released

Version 0.96.1 is a stable release, merely fixing important bugs that were discovered and reported recently.

Confirming that this still is not fixed in Dapper. 0.96.1 is released, but Dapper is still synced to 0.96b. I'm not sure if an UVF exception can be made in this case, but this is a showstopper without some tedious file editing:

"Sorry, this program is too ancient to run without
an explicit user action: If it's not possible to upgrade
you may edit the file

        /home/<username>/.gtk-gnutella/config_gnet

and set the variable "ancient_version_force" to
"gtk-gnutella/0.96b (2005-11-22; GTK2; Linux i686)"."

According to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2006-February/000545.html, assigning bug to motu-uvf.

After reassigning, the status should probably be changed to Unconfirmed.

please attach a changelog diff and diffstat from our current version to the new upstream version as explained here: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2006-February/000545.html

(other than that it sounds sane to update... but a list of changes would be nice to have :) )

Whoops, I cited that page and then failed to follow the proper instructions. Do I need to build a package to get those? Or is pasting the upstream changelog sufficient? (Either way, I'm game; I just don't know exactly what that means.)

build log and install log would be nice to have...
but a upstream changelog diff and diffstat would be enough imho

Err, you want a package to be uploaded, no? And of course you will need an updated package in any case for being able to test it, no?

and after all, without updated package, you won't be able to provide build and install logs, no?

I'll prepare a package now when nobody has one already

http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=2170

Changelog, diffstat, buildlog, installlog, $whatever_else_you_want will follow soon ;)

changelog.diff

diffstat.txt

Maybe this is too much noise on this bug, but what happens next? Sebastian, I see you are on the MOTU UVF team, so I'd think you could just get this new package out, but is there anything we users can do to help?

buildlog.txt

installlog.txt

Andrew, you could test the package and report any regressions or bugs :)
http://revu.tauware.de/revu1-incoming/gtk-gnutella-0603220840/gtk-gnutella_0.96.1-0ubuntu1_i386.deb

"You don't have permission to access /revu1-incoming/gtk-gnutella-0603220840/gtk-gnutella_0.96.1-0ubuntu1_i386.deb on this server."

try this one... there seems to be a problem on tiber with revu-build...

looks good to me.

ready to upload

uploaded