From v at piratweb.com Fri May 27 07:13:37 2016 From: v at piratweb.com (Vladislav Vorobiev) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 10:13:37 +0300 Subject: [SyncEvolution] syncevolution-kde + akonadi [ERROR syncevo-dbus-server 00:00:00] child process quit because of signal 11 Message-ID: <6413372.GSvTpbh0lX@loenka> Hi, after some upgrades i run in the strage issue. $ SYNCEVOLUTION_DEBUG=3 syncevolution --sync two-way funambol calendar [DEBUG 00:00:00] SuspendFlags: (re)activating, currently inactive [DEBUG 00:00:00] SuspendFlags: activating signal handler(s) with fds 11->10 [DEBUG 00:00:00] SuspendFlags: catch signal 2 [DEBUG 00:00:00] SuspendFlags: catch signal 15 [INFO 00:00:00] addressbook: inactive [INFO 00:00:00] memo: inactive [INFO 00:00:00] todo: inactive [INFO 00:00:00] calendar: starting normal sync, two-way (peer is server) [INFO 00:00:00] creating complete data backup of datastore calendar before sync (enabled with dumpData and needed for printChanges) [ERROR syncevo-dbus-server 00:00:00] child process quit because of signal 11 [DEBUG 00:00:01] SuspendFlags: deactivating fds 11->10 [DEBUG 00:00:01] SuspendFlags: close m_receiverFD 10 [DEBUG 00:00:01] SuspendFlags: close m_senderFD 11 [DEBUG 00:00:01] SuspendFlags: done with deactivation By starting syncvo-dbus in debug /usr/libexec/syncevo-dbus-server -o -s --verbosity=3 I get in the console INFO 00:09:42] calendar: starting normal sync, two-way (peer is server) [INFO 00:09:42] creating complete data backup of datastore calendar before sync (enabled with dumpData and needed for printChanges) [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:43] reading helper combined stdout/stderr 13142 done: <> [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:43] helper quit with return code 11, was not aborted [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:43] ForkExecParent: child 13142 was signaled yes, signal 11 (SIGINT=2, SIGTERM=15), int sent no, term sent no [ERROR syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:43] child process quit because of signal 11 [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:43] helper failed, status code 500 = fatal error (remote, status 500), child process quit because of signal 11 [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:44] session /org/syncevolution/Session/2850263211464332447 done, config funambol, not modified, result 10500 [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:44] auto sync: sync session funambol done, result 10500 is a permanent failure [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:44] delaying destruction of session 2850263211464332447 by one minute [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:44] server is idle [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:44] D-Bus client :1.289 has disconnected [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:44] activating idle termination in 600 seconds because idle [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:44] D-Bus client :1.289 is destructing [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:50] session 18979675371464332443 expired [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:09:50] session /org/syncevolution/Session/18979675371464332443 deconstructing [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:10:03] session 256772771464332444 expired [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:10:03] session /org/syncevolution/Session/256772771464332444 deconstructing [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:10:07] session 175690811464332445 expired [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:10:07] session /org/syncevolution/Session/175690811464332445 deconstructing [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:10:32] session 2145015271464332446 expired [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:10:32] session /org/syncevolution/Session/2145015271464332446 deconstructing [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:10:44] session 2850263211464332447 expired [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:10:44] session /org/syncevolution/Session/2850263211464332447 deconstructing ^C[DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:11:17] SuspendFlags: read 7 from fd 17 [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:11:17] reveived signal 2 [INFO syncevo-dbus-server 00:11:17] server shutting down because of SIGINT or SIGTERM [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:11:17] Exiting Server::run [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:11:17] cleaning up [DEBUG syncevo-dbus-server 00:11:17] flushing D-Bus connection [INFO syncevo-dbus-server 00:11:17] terminating, closing logging [INFO syncevo-dbus-server] terminating == $ syncevolution --version SyncEvolution 1.5.1 using libical.so.1 using libical.so.1 using libbluetooth.so.3 Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/syncxmlrpc.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/syncsqlite.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/syncqtcontacts.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/syncpbap.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/syncmaemocal.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/synckcalextended.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/syncfile.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/syncecal.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/syncebook.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/syncdav.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/syncakonadi.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/providergoa.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/platformkde.so Loading backend library /usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/platformgnome.so Any Ideas? Best Regards Vladislav _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution at syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution From patrick.ohly at intel.com Mon May 30 10:01:52 2016 From: patrick.ohly at intel.com (Patrick Ohly) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 12:01:52 +0200 Subject: [SyncEvolution] syncevolution-kde + akonadi [ERROR syncevo-dbus-server 00:00:00] child process quit because of signal 11 In-Reply-To: <6413372.GSvTpbh0lX@loenka> References: <6413372.GSvTpbh0lX@loenka> Message-ID: <1464602512.24758.6.camel@intel.com> On Fri, 2016-05-27 at 10:13 +0300, Vladislav Vorobiev wrote: > Hi, > > after some upgrades i run in the strage issue. Signal 11 is a segfault. Sounds like something isn't compiled correctly anymore or some component got broken. What is this upgrade that you ran? Which OS? Which SyncEvolution binaries (i.e. from distro or syncevolution.org)? > $ SYNCEVOLUTION_DEBUG=3 syncevolution --sync two-way funambol calendar > [DEBUG 00:00:00] SuspendFlags: (re)activating, currently inactive > [DEBUG 00:00:00] SuspendFlags: activating signal handler(s) with fds 11->10 > [DEBUG 00:00:00] SuspendFlags: catch signal 2 > [DEBUG 00:00:00] SuspendFlags: catch signal 15 > [INFO 00:00:00] addressbook: inactive > [INFO 00:00:00] memo: inactive > [INFO 00:00:00] todo: inactive > [INFO 00:00:00] calendar: starting normal sync, two-way (peer is server) > [INFO 00:00:00] creating complete data backup of datastore calendar before > sync (enabled with dumpData and needed for printChanges) > [ERROR syncevo-dbus-server 00:00:00] child process quit because of signal 11 The actual failing process is the syncevo-dbus-helper, spawned by the syncevo-dbus-server. To capture the actual segfault, running some item operations directly under gdb with just one process involved will be the easiest approach. Do it like this: SYNCEVOLUTION_DEBUG=1 gdb --args syncevolution --daemon=no loglevel=10 --export /tmp/calendar.ics funambol calendar -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. From marc.b at ntle.de Sat May 21 10:40:24 2016 From: marc.b at ntle.de (Marc Bantle) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 12:40:24 +0200 Subject: [SyncEvolution] item is outside the sync interval Message-ID: <1463827224.8559.58.camel@cnb003> Hi all, I'm trying to sync my ubuntu phone calendar against a newly setup oncloud 9.0 server using a syncevolution (1.5-0ubuntu5) CalDAV connection. For most events I get the following message: [INFO @owncloud] CalDAV peer rejected updated because item is outside the sync interval It looks like only recent and future events (last 3 month) get synced properly and all others are being rejected. Does anyone know, where that message comes from and which component is imposing the restriction? How can I change it? Any hints? Regards, Marc _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution at syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution From tino.keitel+syncevolution at tikei.de Sun May 22 20:36:02 2016 From: tino.keitel+syncevolution at tikei.de (Tino Mettler) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 22:36:02 +0200 Subject: [SyncEvolution] item is outside the sync interval In-Reply-To: <1463827224.8559.58.camel@cnb003> References: <1463827224.8559.58.camel@cnb003> Message-ID: <20160522203602.GA7594@mac.home> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:40:24 +0200, Marc Bantle wrote: [...] > [INFO @owncloud] CalDAV peer rejected updated because > item is outside the sync interval > > It looks like only recent and future events > (last 3 month) get synced properly and all > others are being rejected. > > Does anyone know, where that message comes from > and which component is imposing the restriction? > How can I change it? As Owncloud is the peer from the Syncevolution view, it looks very much like a restriction on the Owncloud side. Owncloud seems to have a "time range filter" fetature that sounds related. Maybe the default is 90 days. Regards, Tino _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution at syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution From patrick.ohly at intel.com Mon May 23 06:16:17 2016 From: patrick.ohly at intel.com (Patrick Ohly) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 08:16:17 +0200 Subject: [SyncEvolution] item is outside the sync interval In-Reply-To: <20160522203602.GA7594@mac.home> References: <1463827224.8559.58.camel@cnb003> <20160522203602.GA7594@mac.home> Message-ID: <1463984177.3095.2.camel@intel.com> On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 22:36 +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:40:24 +0200, Marc Bantle wrote: > > [...] > > > [INFO @owncloud] CalDAV peer rejected updated because > > item is outside the sync interval > > > > It looks like only recent and future events > > (last 3 month) get synced properly and all > > others are being rejected. > > > > Does anyone know, where that message comes from > > and which component is imposing the restriction? > > How can I change it? > > As Owncloud is the peer from the Syncevolution view, it looks very much > like a restriction on the Owncloud side. > > Owncloud seems to have a "time range filter" fetature that sounds > related. Maybe the default is 90 days. It's indeed not something in upstream SyncEvolution. However, the message looks like something produced by SyncEvolution. Is that SyncEvolution coming from Ubuntu? Renato at some point worked on range filtering, perhaps the message comes from that code (see also https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86463). -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. From tino.keitel+syncevolution at tikei.de Mon May 23 06:36:29 2016 From: tino.keitel+syncevolution at tikei.de (Tino Mettler) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 08:36:29 +0200 Subject: [SyncEvolution] item is outside the sync interval In-Reply-To: <1463984177.3095.2.camel@intel.com> References: <1463827224.8559.58.camel@cnb003> <20160522203602.GA7594@mac.home> <1463984177.3095.2.camel@intel.com> Message-ID: <20160523063629.GA9402@mac.home> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 08:16:17 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: [...] > Is that SyncEvolution coming from Ubuntu? Renato at some point worked on > range filtering, perhaps the message comes from that code (see also > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86463). That would be Use-90-days-as-default-value-for-syncInterval.patch I guess: http://ubuntudiff.debian.net/?query=-FPackage+evolution Regards, Tino _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution at syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution From marc.b at ntle.de Mon May 23 18:58:24 2016 From: marc.b at ntle.de (Marc Bantle) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 20:58:24 +0200 Subject: [SyncEvolution] item is outside the sync interval In-Reply-To: <20160523063629.GA9402@mac.home> References: <1463827224.8559.58.camel@cnb003> <20160522203602.GA7594@mac.home> <1463984177.3095.2.camel@intel.com> <20160523063629.GA9402@mac.home> Message-ID: <1464029904.8559.112.camel@cnb003> Hi Timo and Patrick, Am Montag, den 23.05.2016, 08:36 +0200 schrieb Tino Mettler: > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 08:16:17 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > [...] > > > Is that SyncEvolution coming from Ubuntu? Renato at some point worked on > > range filtering, perhaps the message comes from that code (see also > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86463). > Yes, it's the stock ubuntu version delivered with one of the latest OTAs. > That would be Use-90-days-as-default-value-for-syncInterval.patch > I guess: > > http://ubuntudiff.debian.net/?query=-FPackage+evolution Thanks a lot for the pointers. After setting calendar/syncInterval = 9000 I could import all the events. By the way I observed that rejected events, will not reflect in the "Changes applied" table shown at the end of sync. I assume Renato is following this list and I don't have to issue a bug report. Best Regards, Marc _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution at syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution From tino.keitel+syncevolution at tikei.de Tue May 24 06:33:38 2016 From: tino.keitel+syncevolution at tikei.de (Tino Mettler) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:33:38 +0200 Subject: [SyncEvolution] item is outside the sync interval In-Reply-To: <1464029904.8559.112.camel@cnb003> References: <1463827224.8559.58.camel@cnb003> <20160522203602.GA7594@mac.home> <1463984177.3095.2.camel@intel.com> <20160523063629.GA9402@mac.home> <1464029904.8559.112.camel@cnb003> Message-ID: <20160524063338.GA2149@mac.home> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 20:58:24 +0200, Marc Bantle wrote: [...] > By the way I observed that rejected events, will not reflect in the > "Changes applied" table shown at the end of sync. I assume Renato > is following this list and I don't have to issue a bug report. Hi, you should open an Ubuntu bug report so that other users with the same problem can see that this Ubuntu specific issue is already known and can see how to work around it. Regards, Tino _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution at syncevolution.org https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution