[Kolab-devel] Kolab CF

[Stephan Buys]

Hi Andreas,

On Tuesday 20 January 2004 10:36, Andreas Gungl wrote:
> Can you tell me more about the need to distinguish between main Kolab
> release and zfos release?
> See me as an admin who just wonders why there are two releases which seem
> to be (at least to me)
> somehow separated.
>
The original Kolab releases are the packages provided by erfrakon which were
very heavily Qualtiy tested and released when appropriate.
The zfos release is an effort that originated with Thomas Lotterer from the OpenPKG
project to have Kolab more cleanly integrated into OpenPKG. The main differences
as far as I can tell are as follows:

1) zfos uses pure OpenPKG-current packages, the erfrakon releases have some
packages with patches which diverge from OpenPKG. I cant say for sure, but
I think that most of the important patches from erfrakon have been integrated into
OpenPKG-current. 

2) The zfos distribution uses the obmtool scripts to install Kolab, where the 
erfrakon release uses the QIM. 

3) The zfos distribution uses only the native rc (startup and shutdown) scripts
with the builtin OpenPKG mechanisms, where the in the erfrakon release the
process is handled by the rc.kolab script (although monit was supposed to 
manage this, but never worked consistently)

There are a couple of minor differences and tweaks, but the two dont differ 
too much. zfos tends to use more recent packages as well.

> Does that mean you will provide a new package at
> http://www.erfrakon.de/projects/kolab/download/kolab-webclient/ (and a
> short instruction how to
> install it over the previous package)?
>
Because there are extra dependencies which we didn't have time to address
the new web client will only work with the zfos/kolab-cf releases. (Needed
some extra libraries and mysql)
The download will be available from the zfos site and there will be instructions
available on how to install the components. 

> Sorry if my questions are stupid. I just want to keep our Kolab server
> running and up-to-date which
> means basically replace problematic parts like the web frontend from
> October with improved and
> newer versions. An improved web admin frontend would be welcome too, you
> mentioned quota
> support - that's one reason why I would like to go for it.

I agree completely with you. What we really need in Kolab is some active
participation from other parties to help improve the project. I think with the
proposed name changes and package splits it will be easier for people to
help contribute. 

> Unfortunatly information on kolab.kde.org about ongoing develpment are
> rare. 
This could be seen in a positive light as well, Kolab works so well because
of the efforts of the Kroupware project, that no improvements are necesarry ;-)
I will personally try to help improve  this situation, but it takes a lot of time and
its not always possible.

> And the situation on
> the ftp servers is the same like months before. It's hard to convice my
> bosses to stick to Kolab,
> there is indeed pressure to give Skyrix or even OpenExchange from SuSE a
> try. Showing them that
> Kolab matters (even in small steps) would give me better aguments. I think
> there are many more
> people out there who have that problem too, this is why I want to convince
> you to do more
> marketing and shorter cycles in rollout even if the features are minor.
> Steady improvements are
> currently better than waiting for 6-8 month for a new release, IMHO.
>
Well, hopefully the Code Fusion releases will create some excitement, also
there is a long year ahead where a lot of exciting things could develop.

Kind regards,
-- 
Stephan