Re: 1.6.11 to 1.7.6 Upgrade Issue

[Chris Eagan]

~# rb-site manage /var/lib/reviewboard evolve -- --hint
#- Evolution for auth
from django_evolution.mutations import DeleteModel


MUTATIONS = [
DeleteModel('Message')
]
#--
#- Evolution for accounts
from django_evolution.mutations import AddField
from django.db import models


MUTATIONS = [
AddField('Profile', 'timezone', models.CharField, initial=u'UTC', 
max_length=20),
AddField('Profile', 'open_an_issue', models.BooleanField, initial=True)
]
#--
#- Evolution for diffviewer
from django_evolution.mutations import AddField, DeleteField
from django.db import models
from djblets.util.fields import Base64Field


MUTATIONS = [
AddField('DiffSetHistory', 'last_diff_updated', models.DateTimeField, 
null=True),
AddField('FileDiff', 'diff_hash', models.ForeignKey, null=True, 
related_model='diffviewer.FileDiffData'),
AddField('FileDiff', 'parent_diff_hash', models.ForeignKey, null=True, 
related_model='diffviewer.FileDiffData'),
AddField('FileDiff', 'diff64', Base64Field, initial='', 
db_column='diff_base64'),
AddField('FileDiff', 'parent_diff64', Base64Field, initial='', 
db_column='parent_diff_base64'),
DeleteField('FileDiff', 'parent_diff'),
DeleteField('FileDiff', 'diff')
]
#--
#- Evolution for reviews
from django_evolution.mutations import AddField, DeleteField
from django.db import models
from djblets.util.fields import JSONField


MUTATIONS = [
AddField('FileAttachmentComment', 'extra_data', JSONField, null=True),
AddField('ReviewRequest', 'last_review_activity_timestamp', 
models.DateTimeField, null=True, db_column='last_review_timestamp'),
DeleteField('ReviewRequest', 'last_review_timestamp')
]
#--
#- Evolution for scmtools
from django_evolution.mutations import AddField
from django.db import models
from djblets.util.fields import JSONField


MUTATIONS = [
AddField('Repository', 'extra_data', JSONField, null=True),
AddField('Repository', 'hosting_account', models.ForeignKey, null=True, 
related_model='hostingsvcs.HostingServiceAccount')
]
#--
Trial evolution successful.
Run './manage.py evolve --hint --execute' to apply evolution.

On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 2:07:36 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> That looks like it's trying to re-add a very, very old field that you 
> absolutely already have. So something is clearly quite wrong.
>
> Can you run that with evolve --hint (no --execute) and paste the results 
> to me?
>
> Christian
>
> -- 
> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com 
> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Chris Eagan 
> > wrote:
>
>> Christian,
>>
>> Is it possible for me to make manual changes to the database that would 
>> allow this operation to complete? If I understood more about what the error 
>> is describing, I might be able to make some direct changes to work around 
>> it.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:45:23 PM UTC-4, Chris Eagan wrote:
>>>
>>> I ran the command and got the following output. Despite the error 
>>> message, I restarted memcached and apache2 and went to the site. Instead of 
>>> the big django explosion I got before, I now see the "Review Board is 
>>> taking a nap" message.
>>>
>>> ~# rb-site manage /var/lib/reviewboard evolve -- --hint --execute
>>>
>>> You have requested a database evolution. This will alter tables
>>> and data currently in the 'default' database, and may result in
>>> IRREVERSABLE DATA LOSS. Evolutions should be *thoroughly* reviewed
>>> prior to execution.
>>>
>>> Are you sure you want to execute the evolutions?
>>>
>>> Type 'yes' to continue, or 'no' to cancel: yes
>>> Error: Error applying evolution: (1060, "Duplicate column name 
>>> 'diff_base64'")
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:38:08 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:

 Sorry about that.. We hit some rough bugs in Django Evolution (or 
 rather, introduced scenarios it wasn't prepared for), but I do think that 
 going forward, these issues should be mostly gone.

 So I don't normally advise this, but here's what I'd recommend in this 
 case:

 1) Back up your database
 2) Run: rb-site manage /path/to/site evolve -- --hint --execute

 Clear your memcached and make sure that your review requests are still 
 working properly.

 The --hint --execute tells Django Evolution to just make the database 
 match the current schema. Given the situation here where those should 
 already be in the database, I don't know what it'll do to add them 
 (hopefully just update your schema history). If all fails, you can restore 
 the database backup and we can try again.

 Christian

 -- 
 Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
 Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
 Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbagin

Re: 1.6.11 to 1.7.6 Upgrade Issue

[Christian Hammond]

Hi Chris,

That looks like it's trying to re-add a very, very old field that you
absolutely already have. So something is clearly quite wrong.

Can you run that with evolve --hint (no --execute) and paste the results to
me?

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com


On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Chris Eagan  wrote:

> Christian,
>
> Is it possible for me to make manual changes to the database that would
> allow this operation to complete? If I understood more about what the error
> is describing, I might be able to make some direct changes to work around
> it.
>
> -Chris
>
>
> On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:45:23 PM UTC-4, Chris Eagan wrote:
>>
>> I ran the command and got the following output. Despite the error
>> message, I restarted memcached and apache2 and went to the site. Instead of
>> the big django explosion I got before, I now see the "Review Board is
>> taking a nap" message.
>>
>> ~# rb-site manage /var/lib/reviewboard evolve -- --hint --execute
>>
>> You have requested a database evolution. This will alter tables
>> and data currently in the 'default' database, and may result in
>> IRREVERSABLE DATA LOSS. Evolutions should be *thoroughly* reviewed
>> prior to execution.
>>
>> Are you sure you want to execute the evolutions?
>>
>> Type 'yes' to continue, or 'no' to cancel: yes
>> Error: Error applying evolution: (1060, "Duplicate column name
>> 'diff_base64'")
>>
>> On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:38:08 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry about that.. We hit some rough bugs in Django Evolution (or
>>> rather, introduced scenarios it wasn't prepared for), but I do think that
>>> going forward, these issues should be mostly gone.
>>>
>>> So I don't normally advise this, but here's what I'd recommend in this
>>> case:
>>>
>>> 1) Back up your database
>>> 2) Run: rb-site manage /path/to/site evolve -- --hint --execute
>>>
>>> Clear your memcached and make sure that your review requests are still
>>> working properly.
>>>
>>> The --hint --execute tells Django Evolution to just make the database
>>> match the current schema. Given the situation here where those should
>>> already be in the database, I don't know what it'll do to add them
>>> (hopefully just update your schema history). If all fails, you can restore
>>> the database backup and we can try again.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Chris Eagan  wrote:
>>>
 Yes, each server used it's own independent database. They exist on
 fully distinct virtual machines.

 This is only the second time this server has been upgraded. The first
 upgrade attempt I did today was run with the older version of
 django_evolution. That might be why the upgrade wasn't successful and why
 some evolutions were already applied. Unfortunately, I was over-confident
 and didn't back up the database prior to my upgrade attempt because the
 first server had upgraded fine. The first server had the newer version of
 django_evolution installed and I failed to check that the second server did
 prior to the upgrade.

 I have a backup of the database after the first upgrade attempt.

 I did not downgrade or wipe any evolutions.

 -Chris


 On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:11:02 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:

> When you mentioned different servers, were these each with their own
> database?
>
> It's complaining about fields that already existed in 1.6.11, which
> shouldn't be correct. It's also showing that those evolutions were already
> applied.
>
> At any point did you ever downgrade or wipe an evolution?
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:59, Chris Eagan  wrote:
>
> I think my last answer was wrong. I tried to upgrade and got this:
>
> ~# easy_install -U django_evolution
> Searching for django-evolution
> Reading 
> http://downloads.reviewboard.**o**rg/releases/ReviewBoard/1.6/
> Reading 
> http://pypi.python.org/simple/django_evolution/
> Reading 
> http://code.google.com/p/**djang**o-evolution/
> Best match: django-evolution 0.6.9
> Processing django_evolution-0.6.9-py2.6.**e**gg
> django-evolution 0.6.9 is already the active version in
> easy-install.pth
>
> Using /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/django_evolution-0.6.
> 9-py2.6.egg
> Processing dependencies for django-evolution
> Finished processing dependencies for django-evolution
>
> On Monday, April 8, 2013 1:57:20 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:

Re: 1.6.11 to 1.7.6 Upgrade Issue

[Chris Eagan]

Christian,

Is it possible for me to make manual changes to the database that would 
allow this operation to complete? If I understood more about what the error 
is describing, I might be able to make some direct changes to work around 
it.

-Chris

On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:45:23 PM UTC-4, Chris Eagan wrote:
>
> I ran the command and got the following output. Despite the error message, 
> I restarted memcached and apache2 and went to the site. Instead of the big 
> django explosion I got before, I now see the "Review Board is taking a nap" 
> message.
>
> ~# rb-site manage /var/lib/reviewboard evolve -- --hint --execute
>
> You have requested a database evolution. This will alter tables
> and data currently in the 'default' database, and may result in
> IRREVERSABLE DATA LOSS. Evolutions should be *thoroughly* reviewed
> prior to execution.
>
> Are you sure you want to execute the evolutions?
>
> Type 'yes' to continue, or 'no' to cancel: yes
> Error: Error applying evolution: (1060, "Duplicate column name 
> 'diff_base64'")
>
> On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:38:08 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>> Sorry about that.. We hit some rough bugs in Django Evolution (or rather, 
>> introduced scenarios it wasn't prepared for), but I do think that going 
>> forward, these issues should be mostly gone.
>>
>> So I don't normally advise this, but here's what I'd recommend in this 
>> case:
>>
>> 1) Back up your database
>> 2) Run: rb-site manage /path/to/site evolve -- --hint --execute
>>
>> Clear your memcached and make sure that your review requests are still 
>> working properly.
>>
>> The --hint --execute tells Django Evolution to just make the database 
>> match the current schema. Given the situation here where those should 
>> already be in the database, I don't know what it'll do to add them 
>> (hopefully just update your schema history). If all fails, you can restore 
>> the database backup and we can try again.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> -- 
>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Chris Eagan  wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, each server used it's own independent database. They exist on fully 
>>> distinct virtual machines.
>>>
>>> This is only the second time this server has been upgraded. The first 
>>> upgrade attempt I did today was run with the older version of 
>>> django_evolution. That might be why the upgrade wasn't successful and why 
>>> some evolutions were already applied. Unfortunately, I was over-confident 
>>> and didn't back up the database prior to my upgrade attempt because the 
>>> first server had upgraded fine. The first server had the newer version of 
>>> django_evolution installed and I failed to check that the second server did 
>>> prior to the upgrade.
>>>
>>> I have a backup of the database after the first upgrade attempt.
>>>
>>> I did not downgrade or wipe any evolutions.
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:11:02 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>
 When you mentioned different servers, were these each with their own 
 database?

 It's complaining about fields that already existed in 1.6.11, which 
 shouldn't be correct. It's also showing that those evolutions were already 
 applied.

 At any point did you ever downgrade or wipe an evolution?

 Christian


 On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:59, Chris Eagan  wrote:

 I think my last answer was wrong. I tried to upgrade and got this:

 ~# easy_install -U django_evolution
 Searching for django-evolution
 Reading 
 http://downloads.reviewboard.**org/releases/ReviewBoard/1.6/
 Reading 
 http://pypi.python.org/simple/**django_evolution/
 Reading 
 http://code.google.com/p/**django-evolution/
 Best match: django-evolution 0.6.9
 Processing django_evolution-0.6.9-py2.6.**egg
 django-evolution 0.6.9 is already the active version in easy-install.pth

 Using /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-**packages/django_evolution-0.6.**
 9-py2.6.egg
 Processing dependencies for django-evolution
 Finished processing dependencies for django-evolution

 On Monday, April 8, 2013 1:57:20 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Try upgrading to 0.6.9. There were a lot of fixes that went in since 
> your version.
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:53, Chris Eagan  wrote:
>
> 0.6.7-py2.6
>
> On Monday, April 8, 2013 1:46:57 PM UTC-4, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> What version of the django_evolution module is installed?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> -- 
>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>> Be

Re: Error during adding Repository to SSL enabled perforce.

[Christian Hammond]

Hi,

If libssl.so.1.0.0 is in your /usr and not /usr/local, and p4python is compiled 
against it, I'd expect it to work. At this point, I don't know what's wrong 
and, without having access to the system, couldn't diagnose it well enough. 
I'll think about it more, but unfortunately you're in the best position to 
solve it at this point. Something is clearly wrong.

The error you saw us display is keyed off from an error p4python gives us, 
which directly tell us that an invalid version of OpenSSL is being used with 
p4python. So something is wrong there, it seems.

Something you can try, in order to see if it's related to Apache or not, is to 
run the development server by doing:

$ rb-site manage /path/to/site runserver 0.0.0.0:8080

And then connect to servername:8080 and try to add the repository. If you get 
the same error, it's not specific to the version being run in Apache.

It's past 3AM here, so I have to call it a night. Sorry I don't have a solution 
for you.

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com

On Apr 9, 2013, at 3:08 AM, chuck j  wrote:

> 
> In my linux box i am having below /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 
> 
> libssl.so.0.9.7a
> libssl.so.0.9.8e
> 
> but after my openssl build i only got libssl.so.1.0.0 and it got placed in 
> /usr/local/lib64/ i do not see any libssl.so in /usr/local/lib so I am not 
> sure which one Apache is referring 
> 
> Are there any tweak in Apache side.
> 
> After manipulating with libssl symlink restarted apache but the results is 
> not different.
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 1:17:22 PM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
> In that case, do you then have both OpenSSL 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 on the same 
> system? It could be that, when run from Apache, the version in /usr/local 
> isn't being used. You should try backing up the one in /usr/lib and 
> /usr/lib/64, then symlinking to the new ones.
> 
> Christian
> 
> -- 
> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
> 
> On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:25 AM, chuck j  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> As i said since my machine was not having openssl1.0.1 installed, hence we 
>> need to build openssl first from source which gets installed at /usr/local/ 
>> where these libssl.so gets placed at /usr/local/lib64 and its link also gets 
>> created with the name libcrypto.so.1.0.0,  libssl.so.1.0.0
>> 
>> I restarted my Apache before adding the repository, its seems review board 
>> when try to perform p4.connect and it couldn't per that steps and reports 
>> errors.
>> 
>> If am able to perform p4.connect from outside, which P4API.so does review 
>> board referring to.
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 12:38:26 PM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
>> These e-mails keep ending up directed to me. Let's be sure they're all on 
>> the mailing list.
>> 
>> Christian
>> 
>> -- 
>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>> 
>> On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:05 AM, Christian Hammond  wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry, but what generates libssl.so?
>>> 
>>> Just to be sure, did you restart Apache before adding a repository?
>>> 
>>> Christian
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>>> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:09 PM, chuck j  wrote:
>>> 
 
 Ok All the P4.* files are present in
 
 /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages
 
 The libssl.so placed at /usr/local/lib64/libcrypto.so 
 /usr/local/lib64/libssl.so
 
 Do i need to do some manually changes in reviewboard setting which should 
 pick correct P4API.so
 
 
 On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:11:39 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
 Yeah, it's possible it's grabbing that one instead.
 
 If p4python is successfully built using OpenSSL, the only thing I can 
 think of to cause that error would be Review Board using an older copy 
 somehow.
 
 Where's the new P4.* files?
 
 Christian
 
 -- 
 Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
 Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
 Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
 
 On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:39 PM, chuck j  wrote:
 
> Here are some more information:
> 
> I can see there was old P4Python-2008.2-py2.7.egg-info file present at 
> site-packages folder, But i had make sure this version's P4.py, P4.pyc, 
> P4.pyo, P4API.so are moved to some safe place. Will this file make any 
> difference.
> 
> cat easy-install.pth
> 
> import sys; sys.__plen = len(sys.path)
> ./setuptools-0.6c11-py2.7.egg
> ./python_memcached-1.47-py2.7.egg
> ./recaptcha_client-1.0.6-py2.7.egg
> ./python_dateutil-1.5-py2.7.egg
> ./flup-1.0.3.dev_20110405-py2.7.eg

Re: SVN integration

[kvr]

Thanks David

On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 1:59:18 PM UTC+5:30, David Trowbridge wrote:
>
> Yes, each SVN repository needs a different entry in the reviewboard admin 
> UI.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:22 AM, kvr >wrote:
>
>> Thanks David, I would try that.
>>
>> How to add multiple SVN repositories present under same host.Does every 
>> repository need a separate entry in the Review Board admin UI?
>>
>> In perforce we just give the P4PORT so that reviews can be performed in 
>> all the depots under that host.
>>
>> Is it possible to configure SVN also like Perforce.
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 6:28:25 AM UTC+5:30, David Trowbridge wrote:
>>
>>> We currently have an open issue where it doesn't detect the right 
>>> environment. The best way to fix this (which admittedly is pretty terrible) 
>>> is to change the order of things in load_scmclients in 
>>> rbtools/clients/__init__.py
>>>
>>> We'll have a better way to fix this coming soon.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:58 PM, kvr  wrote:
>>>
 Thanks David for your reply.
 Now I am trying to post review request on SVN repository.
 I used below command to post,

 post-review -d --server http://xxx.xxx.xx.xx --repository-url SVN_151 
 --username=xx --password=xx --revision-range=x:x

 But post-review is identifying my repository as Perforce repository and 
 running "p4 info"
 Below is the debug info,

 >>> Checking the repository type. Errors shown below are mostly 
 harmless.
 DEBUG:root:Checking for a CVS repository...
 DEBUG:root:Checking for a ClearCase repository...
 DEBUG:root:Running: cleartool pwv -short
 DEBUG:root:Checking for a Git repository...
 DEBUG:root:Checking for a Mercurial repository...
 DEBUG:root:Checking for a Perforce repository...
 DEBUG:root:Running: p4 info
 DEBUG:root:Running: diff --version
 Please tell me what may be possible reason for this and how to point to 
 SVN repository in this case.

 Regards,
 kvr

 On Friday, April 5, 2013 5:27:44 AM UTC+5:30, David Trowbridge wrote:

> Sure, that's possible. You just make changes to your working directory 
> in svn, use rbtools (or 'svn diff') to create your diffs, and go through 
> the code review process the same way.
>
> The only major difference is that when you're using rbtools to update 
> an existing review request, you need to specify the review request ID, 
> since there's no CLN->review request mapping like there is with perforce.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:34 AM, kvr  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So far we've been using Perforce, now we need to integrate with SVN 
>> also.
>>
>> But I am bit confused with SVN.
>>
>> Is it possible to raise review requests in SVN on pre-commited code 
>> like we do in Perforce.if so how.
>>
>> In perforce the review cycle seems very simple,as below
>>
>> Check out->Raise Review->Get comments->Update source according to the 
>> Comments->Update the Review->Close the Review(Changes are fine)->Check 
>> in 
>> the code back to Perforce
>>
>> Please tell me how to do the same kind of review in SVN also, if 
>> possible.
>>
>> Regards,
>> kvr
>>
>> -- 
>> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at 
>> http://www.reviewboard.org/**don**ate/
>> Happy user? Let us know at 
>> http://www.reviewboard.org/**use**rs/
>> -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard...@**
>> googlegroups.**com
>>
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>> group**/reviewboard?hl=en
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "reviewboard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
>> send an email to reviewboard...@**googlegroups.**com.
>>
>> For more options, visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/**grou**ps/opt_out
>> .
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>  -- 
 Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at 
 http://www.reviewboard.org/**donate/
 Happy user? Let us know at 
 http://www.reviewboard.org/**users/
 -~--~~~~--**~~--~--~---
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard...@**
 googlegroups.com
 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/reviewboard?hl=en
 --- 
 You received this message because you are su

Re: Error during adding Repository to SSL enabled perforce.

[chuck j]

In my linux box i am having below /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 

libssl.so.0.9.7a
libssl.so.0.9.8e

but after my openssl build i only got libssl.so.1.0.0 and it got placed in 
/usr/local/lib64/ i do not see any libssl.so in /usr/local/lib so I am not 
sure which one Apache is referring 

Are there any tweak in Apache side.

After manipulating with libssl symlink restarted apache but the results is 
not different.


On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 1:17:22 PM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> In that case, do you then have both OpenSSL 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 on the same 
> system? It could be that, when run from Apache, the version in /usr/local 
> isn't being used. You should try backing up the one in /usr/lib and 
> /usr/lib/64, then symlinking to the new ones.
>
> Christian
>
> -- 
> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com 
> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>  
> On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:25 AM, chuck j > 
> wrote:
>
>
> As i said since my machine was not having openssl1.0.1 installed, hence we 
> need to build openssl first from source which gets installed at /usr/local/ 
> where these libssl.so gets placed at /usr/local/lib64 and its link also 
> gets created with the name libcrypto.so.1.0.0,  libssl.so.1.0.0
>
> I restarted my Apache before adding the repository, its seems review board 
> when try to perform p4.connect and it couldn't per that steps and reports 
> errors.
>
> If am able to perform p4.connect from outside, which P4API.so does review 
> board referring to.
>
>  
>  
> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 12:38:26 PM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>> These e-mails keep ending up directed to me. Let's be sure they're all on 
>> the mailing list.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> -- 
>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>>  
>> On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:05 AM, Christian Hammond  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but what generates libssl.so?
>>
>> Just to be sure, did you restart Apache before adding a repository?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> -- 
>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>>  
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:09 PM, chuck j  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ok All the P4.* files are present in
>>
>> /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages
>>
>> The libssl.so placed at /usr/local/lib64/libcrypto.so 
>> /usr/local/lib64/libssl.so
>>
>> Do i need to do some manually changes in reviewboard setting which should 
>> pick correct P4API.so
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:11:39 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's possible it's grabbing that one instead.
>>>
>>> If p4python is successfully built using OpenSSL, the only thing I can 
>>> think of to cause that error would be Review Board using an older copy 
>>> somehow.
>>>
>>> Where's the new P4.* files?
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>>>  
>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:39 PM, chuck j  wrote:
>>>
>>> Here are some more information:
>>>
>>> I can see there was old P4Python-2008.2-py2.7.egg-info file present at 
>>> site-packages folder, But i had make sure this version's P4.py, P4.pyc, 
>>> P4.pyo, P4API.so are moved to some safe place. Will this file make any 
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> cat easy-install.pth
>>>
>>> import sys; sys.__plen = len(sys.path)
>>> ./setuptools-0.6c11-py2.7.egg
>>> ./python_memcached-1.47-py2.7.egg
>>> ./recaptcha_client-1.0.6-py2.7.egg
>>> ./python_dateutil-1.5-py2.7.egg
>>> ./flup-1.0.3.dev_20110405-py2.7.egg
>>> ./PIL-1.1.6-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>>> ./python_ldap-2.3.13-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>>> ./MySQL_python-1.2.3-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>>> ./ReviewBoard-1.7.6-py2.7.egg
>>> ./pytz-2013b-py2.7.egg
>>> ./Pygments-1.6-py2.7.egg
>>> ./paramiko-1.10.0-py2.7.egg
>>> ./mimeparse-0.1.3-py2.7.egg
>>> ./Markdown-2.3.1-py2.7.egg
>>> ./docutils-0.10-py2.7.egg
>>> ./django_pipeline-1.2.24-py2.7.egg
>>> ./Djblets-0.7.11-py2.7.egg
>>> ./django_evolution-0.6.9-py2.7.egg
>>> ./Django-1.4.5-py2.7.egg
>>> ./pycrypto-2.6-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>>> ./feedparser-5.1.3-py2.7.egg
>>> import sys; new=sys.path[sys.__plen:]; del sys.path[sys.__plen:]; 
>>> p=getattr(sys,'__egginsert',0); sys.path[p:p]=new; sys.__egginsert = 
>>> p+len(new)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 10:39:52 AM UTC+5:30, chuck j wrote:

 Hi Chris,

 Reviewboard is using the same version of python for which i have 
 provided example as below

 [GCC 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46)] on linux2
 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
 >>> import P4

 There are no Two version of p4python installed, how do i figure it out. 
 i can see my site-packages contains following files after p4python build 
 and install i.e P4.py, P4.pyc, P4.pyo, P4API.so


 On Tue

Re: SVN integration

[David Trowbridge]

Yes, each SVN repository needs a different entry in the reviewboard admin
UI.

-David


On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:22 AM, kvr  wrote:

> Thanks David, I would try that.
>
> How to add multiple SVN repositories present under same host.Does every
> repository need a separate entry in the Review Board admin UI?
>
> In perforce we just give the P4PORT so that reviews can be performed in
> all the depots under that host.
>
> Is it possible to configure SVN also like Perforce.
>
>
> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 6:28:25 AM UTC+5:30, David Trowbridge wrote:
>
>> We currently have an open issue where it doesn't detect the right
>> environment. The best way to fix this (which admittedly is pretty terrible)
>> is to change the order of things in load_scmclients in
>> rbtools/clients/__init__.py
>>
>> We'll have a better way to fix this coming soon.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:58 PM, kvr  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks David for your reply.
>>> Now I am trying to post review request on SVN repository.
>>> I used below command to post,
>>>
>>> post-review -d --server http://xxx.xxx.xx.xx --repository-url SVN_151
>>> --username=xx --password=xx --revision-range=x:x
>>>
>>> But post-review is identifying my repository as Perforce repository and
>>> running "p4 info"
>>> Below is the debug info,
>>>
>>> >>> Checking the repository type. Errors shown below are mostly harmless.
>>> DEBUG:root:Checking for a CVS repository...
>>> DEBUG:root:Checking for a ClearCase repository...
>>> DEBUG:root:Running: cleartool pwv -short
>>> DEBUG:root:Checking for a Git repository...
>>> DEBUG:root:Checking for a Mercurial repository...
>>> DEBUG:root:Checking for a Perforce repository...
>>> DEBUG:root:Running: p4 info
>>> DEBUG:root:Running: diff --version
>>> Please tell me what may be possible reason for this and how to point to
>>> SVN repository in this case.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> kvr
>>>
>>> On Friday, April 5, 2013 5:27:44 AM UTC+5:30, David Trowbridge wrote:
>>>
 Sure, that's possible. You just make changes to your working directory
 in svn, use rbtools (or 'svn diff') to create your diffs, and go through
 the code review process the same way.

 The only major difference is that when you're using rbtools to update
 an existing review request, you need to specify the review request ID,
 since there's no CLN->review request mapping like there is with perforce.

 -David


 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:34 AM, kvr  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> So far we've been using Perforce, now we need to integrate with SVN
> also.
>
> But I am bit confused with SVN.
>
> Is it possible to raise review requests in SVN on pre-commited code
> like we do in Perforce.if so how.
>
> In perforce the review cycle seems very simple,as below
>
> Check out->Raise Review->Get comments->Update source according to the
> Comments->Update the Review->Close the Review(Changes are fine)->Check in
> the code back to Perforce
>
> Please tell me how to do the same kind of review in SVN also, if
> possible.
>
> Regards,
> kvr
>
> --
> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
> http://www.reviewboard.org/**don**ate/
> Happy user? Let us know at 
> http://www.reviewboard.org/**use**rs/
> -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard...@**
> googlegroups.**com
>
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group
> **/reviewboard?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "reviewboard" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to reviewboard...@**googlegroups.**com.
>
> For more options, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/**grou**ps/opt_out
> .
>
>
>

  --
>>> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
>>> http://www.reviewboard.org/**donate/
>>> Happy user? Let us know at 
>>> http://www.reviewboard.org/**users/
>>> -~--~~~~--**~~--~--~---
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard...@**
>>> googlegroups.com
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/reviewboard?hl=en
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "reviewboard" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to reviewboard...@**googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out

Re: SVN integration

[kvr]

Thanks David, I would try that.

How to add multiple SVN repositories present under same host.Does every 
repository need a separate entry in the Review Board admin UI?

In perforce we just give the P4PORT so that reviews can be performed in all 
the depots under that host.

Is it possible to configure SVN also like Perforce.

On Saturday, April 6, 2013 6:28:25 AM UTC+5:30, David Trowbridge wrote:
>
> We currently have an open issue where it doesn't detect the right 
> environment. The best way to fix this (which admittedly is pretty terrible) 
> is to change the order of things in load_scmclients in 
> rbtools/clients/__init__.py
>
> We'll have a better way to fix this coming soon.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:58 PM, kvr >wrote:
>
>> Thanks David for your reply.
>> Now I am trying to post review request on SVN repository.
>> I used below command to post,
>>
>> post-review -d --server http://xxx.xxx.xx.xx --repository-url SVN_151 
>> --username=xx --password=xx --revision-range=x:x
>>
>> But post-review is identifying my repository as Perforce repository and 
>> running "p4 info"
>> Below is the debug info,
>>
>> >>> Checking the repository type. Errors shown below are mostly harmless.
>> DEBUG:root:Checking for a CVS repository...
>> DEBUG:root:Checking for a ClearCase repository...
>> DEBUG:root:Running: cleartool pwv -short
>> DEBUG:root:Checking for a Git repository...
>> DEBUG:root:Checking for a Mercurial repository...
>> DEBUG:root:Checking for a Perforce repository...
>> DEBUG:root:Running: p4 info
>> DEBUG:root:Running: diff --version
>> Please tell me what may be possible reason for this and how to point to 
>> SVN repository in this case.
>>
>> Regards,
>> kvr
>>
>> On Friday, April 5, 2013 5:27:44 AM UTC+5:30, David Trowbridge wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, that's possible. You just make changes to your working directory 
>>> in svn, use rbtools (or 'svn diff') to create your diffs, and go through 
>>> the code review process the same way.
>>>
>>> The only major difference is that when you're using rbtools to update an 
>>> existing review request, you need to specify the review request ID, since 
>>> there's no CLN->review request mapping like there is with perforce.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:34 AM, kvr  wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 So far we've been using Perforce, now we need to integrate with SVN 
 also.

 But I am bit confused with SVN.

 Is it possible to raise review requests in SVN on pre-commited code 
 like we do in Perforce.if so how.

 In perforce the review cycle seems very simple,as below

 Check out->Raise Review->Get comments->Update source according to the 
 Comments->Update the Review->Close the Review(Changes are fine)->Check in 
 the code back to Perforce

 Please tell me how to do the same kind of review in SVN also, if 
 possible.

 Regards,
 kvr

 -- 
 Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at 
 http://www.reviewboard.org/**donate/
 Happy user? Let us know at 
 http://www.reviewboard.org/**users/
 -~--~~~~--**~~--~--~---
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard...@**
 googlegroups.com

 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/reviewboard?hl=en
 --- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups "reviewboard" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
 an email to reviewboard...@**googlegroups.com.

 For more options, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out
 .
  
  

>>>
>>>  -- 
>> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at 
>> http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
>> Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
>> -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> reviewboard...@googlegroups.com 
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "reviewboard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to reviewboard...@googlegroups.com .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>

-- 
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at 
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?

Re: email settings for gmail SMTP?

[Yingtao Qiu]

I used 587 port, but I still got some errors as below

[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error] Traceback (most recent call last):
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error]   File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.7.6-py2.7.egg/reviewboard/notifications/email.py",
 line 244, in send_review_mail
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error] message.send()
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error]   File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.7.egg/django/core/mail/message.py",
 line 248, in send
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error] return 
self.get_connection(fail_silently).send_messages([self])
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error]   File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.7.egg/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py",
 line 85, in send_messages
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error] new_conn_created = self.open()
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error]   File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/Django-1.4.5-py2.7.egg/django/core/mail/backends/smtp.py",
 line 48, in open
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error] local_hostname=DNS_NAME.get_fqdn())
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error]   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/smtplib.py", line 
249, in __init__
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error] (code, msg) = self.connect(host, port)
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error]   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/smtplib.py", line 
309, in connect
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error] self.sock = self._get_socket(host, port, 
self.timeout)
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error]   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/smtplib.py", line 
284, in _get_socket
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error] return socket.create_connection((port, 
host), timeout)
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error]   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/socket.py", line 
571, in create_connection
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error] raise err
[Tue Apr 09 07:19:02 2013] [error] error: [Errno 111] Connection refused



在 2009年9月9日星期三UTC+8下午9时52分06秒，Dan Myung写道：
>
> We actually got it working.  To make a long story short, I was using 
> the wrong gmail smtp port (587 good, 465 bad).  I'm putting our full 
> thought process down just in case it might be useful. 
>
> No proxy in our network.  The host has a direct route out.  Clients 
> accessing it directly also have no machinery between it. 
>
> on the email settings tab we got: 
>
> server: smtp.gmail.com 
> port: 465 
> username: rev...@dimagi.com  
> password:blahblah 
>
> use TLS is checked. 
>
>
> When i ran the command (which is send_review_mail, not 
> send_review_email as i have in error in the original post), here's the 
> traceback: 
>
> Traceback (most recent call last): 
>   File "", line 1, in  
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ReviewBoard-1.0.1- 
> py2.6.egg/reviewboard/reviews/email.py", line 114, in send_review_mail 
> message.send() 
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.0.2_final- 
> py2.6.egg/django/core/mail.py", line 271, in send 
> return self.get_connection(fail_silently).send_messages([self]) 
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.0.2_final- 
> py2.6.egg/django/core/mail.py", line 166, in send_messages 
> new_conn_created = self.open() 
>   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Django-1.0.2_final- 
> py2.6.egg/django/core/mail.py", line 131, in open 
> local_hostname=DNS_NAME.get_fqdn()) 
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/smtplib.py", line 239, in __init__ 
> (code, msg) = self.connect(host, port) 
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/smtplib.py", line 295, in connect 
> self.sock = self._get_socket(host, port, self.timeout) 
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/smtplib.py", line 273, in _get_socket 
> return socket.create_connection((port, host), timeout) 
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/socket.py", line 512, in create_connection 
> raise error, msg 
> error: [Errno 111] Connection refused 
>
> Upon testing some more, I was actually able to get it working 
> actually.  Turns out port 465 was the culprit actually for the hanging 
> loading on the web interface.  My command line testing with the 
> local_settings.py worked fine with port 587, and I didn't bother to 
> test 465 from the command line, which reproduced a hanging state from 
> the command line. 
>
> So, I cleared the settings.EMAIL_* properties to let reviewboard work 
> as native, and the web interface worked as expected. 
>
> I then tried the command line email again, and was able to reproduce 
> the same exception.  How are the email settings loaded when an email 
> is initiated from the web interface, as it differs from the command 
> line.  We are interested in this because we'd like some additional 
> emails to go out on comments and such, and thought we might just run 
> the email code ourselves via some signal or something. 
>
> Thanks, 
> Dan 
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 8, 7:09 pm, Christian Hammond  wrote: 
> > Hi Dan, 
> > 
> > Are you guys behind a proxy server, by any chance? I could see that 
> > potentially causing this to fail. 
> > 
> > What do you have liste

Re: Error during adding Repository to SSL enabled perforce.

[Christian Hammond]

In that case, do you then have both OpenSSL 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 on the same system? 
It could be that, when run from Apache, the version in /usr/local isn't being 
used. You should try backing up the one in /usr/lib and /usr/lib/64, then 
symlinking to the new ones.

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com

On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:25 AM, chuck j  wrote:

> 
> As i said since my machine was not having openssl1.0.1 installed, hence we 
> need to build openssl first from source which gets installed at /usr/local/ 
> where these libssl.so gets placed at /usr/local/lib64 and its link also gets 
> created with the name libcrypto.so.1.0.0,  libssl.so.1.0.0
> 
> I restarted my Apache before adding the repository, its seems review board 
> when try to perform p4.connect and it couldn't per that steps and reports 
> errors.
> 
> If am able to perform p4.connect from outside, which P4API.so does review 
> board referring to.
> 
>  
>  
> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 12:38:26 PM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
> These e-mails keep ending up directed to me. Let's be sure they're all on the 
> mailing list.
> 
> Christian
> 
> -- 
> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
> 
> On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:05 AM, Christian Hammond  wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, but what generates libssl.so?
>> 
>> Just to be sure, did you restart Apache before adding a repository?
>> 
>> Christian
>> 
>> -- 
>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>> 
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:09 PM, chuck j  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Ok All the P4.* files are present in
>>> 
>>> /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages
>>> 
>>> The libssl.so placed at /usr/local/lib64/libcrypto.so 
>>> /usr/local/lib64/libssl.so
>>> 
>>> Do i need to do some manually changes in reviewboard setting which should 
>>> pick correct P4API.so
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:11:39 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's possible it's grabbing that one instead.
>>> 
>>> If p4python is successfully built using OpenSSL, the only thing I can think 
>>> of to cause that error would be Review Board using an older copy somehow.
>>> 
>>> Where's the new P4.* files?
>>> 
>>> Christian
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>>> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:39 PM, chuck j  wrote:
>>> 
 Here are some more information:
 
 I can see there was old P4Python-2008.2-py2.7.egg-info file present at 
 site-packages folder, But i had make sure this version's P4.py, P4.pyc, 
 P4.pyo, P4API.so are moved to some safe place. Will this file make any 
 difference.
 
 cat easy-install.pth
 
 import sys; sys.__plen = len(sys.path)
 ./setuptools-0.6c11-py2.7.egg
 ./python_memcached-1.47-py2.7.egg
 ./recaptcha_client-1.0.6-py2.7.egg
 ./python_dateutil-1.5-py2.7.egg
 ./flup-1.0.3.dev_20110405-py2.7.egg
 ./PIL-1.1.6-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
 ./python_ldap-2.3.13-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
 ./MySQL_python-1.2.3-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
 ./ReviewBoard-1.7.6-py2.7.egg
 ./pytz-2013b-py2.7.egg
 ./Pygments-1.6-py2.7.egg
 ./paramiko-1.10.0-py2.7.egg
 ./mimeparse-0.1.3-py2.7.egg
 ./Markdown-2.3.1-py2.7.egg
 ./docutils-0.10-py2.7.egg
 ./django_pipeline-1.2.24-py2.7.egg
 ./Djblets-0.7.11-py2.7.egg
 ./django_evolution-0.6.9-py2.7.egg
 ./Django-1.4.5-py2.7.egg
 ./pycrypto-2.6-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
 ./feedparser-5.1.3-py2.7.egg
 import sys; new=sys.path[sys.__plen:]; del sys.path[sys.__plen:]; 
 p=getattr(sys,'__egginsert',0); sys.path[p:p]=new; sys.__egginsert = 
 p+len(new)
 
 
 On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 10:39:52 AM UTC+5:30, chuck j wrote:
 Hi Chris,
 
 Reviewboard is using the same version of python for which i have provided 
 example as below
 
 [GCC 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46)] on linux2
 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
 >>> import P4
 
 There are no Two version of p4python installed, how do i figure it out. i 
 can see my site-packages contains following files after p4python build and 
 install i.e P4.py, P4.pyc, P4.pyo, P4API.so
 
 
 On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 12:45:35 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
 Is Review Board using the same version of Python? Any chance there are now 
 two copies of p4python installed?
 
 Christian
 
 
 On Apr 8, 2013, at 4:01, chuck j  wrote:
 
> Dear All, 
> 
> This is very critical, I am still not able to add SSL enabled perforce 
> repository to reviewboard, Please help me.
> 
> Since my machine was not having opens

Re: Error during adding Repository to SSL enabled perforce.

[chuck j]

As i said since my machine was not having openssl1.0.1 installed, hence we 
need to build openssl first from source which gets installed at /usr/local/ 
where these libssl.so gets placed at /usr/local/lib64 and its link also 
gets created with the name libcrypto.so.1.0.0,  libssl.so.1.0.0

I restarted my Apache before adding the repository, its seems review board 
when try to perform p4.connect and it couldn't per that steps and reports 
errors.

If am able to perform p4.connect from outside, which P4API.so does review 
board referring to.

 
 
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 12:38:26 PM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> These e-mails keep ending up directed to me. Let's be sure they're all on 
> the mailing list.
>
> Christian
>
> -- 
> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com 
> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>  
> On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:05 AM, Christian Hammond 
> > 
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but what generates libssl.so?
>
> Just to be sure, did you restart Apache before adding a repository?
>
> Christian
>
> -- 
> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com 
> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>  
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:09 PM, chuck j > 
> wrote:
>
>
> Ok All the P4.* files are present in
>
> /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages
>
> The libssl.so placed at /usr/local/lib64/libcrypto.so 
> /usr/local/lib64/libssl.so
>
> Do i need to do some manually changes in reviewboard setting which should 
> pick correct P4API.so
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:11:39 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, it's possible it's grabbing that one instead.
>>
>> If p4python is successfully built using OpenSSL, the only thing I can 
>> think of to cause that error would be Review Board using an older copy 
>> somehow.
>>
>> Where's the new P4.* files?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> -- 
>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>>  
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:39 PM, chuck j  wrote:
>>
>> Here are some more information:
>>
>> I can see there was old P4Python-2008.2-py2.7.egg-info file present at 
>> site-packages folder, But i had make sure this version's P4.py, P4.pyc, 
>> P4.pyo, P4API.so are moved to some safe place. Will this file make any 
>> difference.
>>
>> cat easy-install.pth
>>
>> import sys; sys.__plen = len(sys.path)
>> ./setuptools-0.6c11-py2.7.egg
>> ./python_memcached-1.47-py2.7.egg
>> ./recaptcha_client-1.0.6-py2.7.egg
>> ./python_dateutil-1.5-py2.7.egg
>> ./flup-1.0.3.dev_20110405-py2.7.egg
>> ./PIL-1.1.6-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>> ./python_ldap-2.3.13-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>> ./MySQL_python-1.2.3-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>> ./ReviewBoard-1.7.6-py2.7.egg
>> ./pytz-2013b-py2.7.egg
>> ./Pygments-1.6-py2.7.egg
>> ./paramiko-1.10.0-py2.7.egg
>> ./mimeparse-0.1.3-py2.7.egg
>> ./Markdown-2.3.1-py2.7.egg
>> ./docutils-0.10-py2.7.egg
>> ./django_pipeline-1.2.24-py2.7.egg
>> ./Djblets-0.7.11-py2.7.egg
>> ./django_evolution-0.6.9-py2.7.egg
>> ./Django-1.4.5-py2.7.egg
>> ./pycrypto-2.6-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>> ./feedparser-5.1.3-py2.7.egg
>> import sys; new=sys.path[sys.__plen:]; del sys.path[sys.__plen:]; 
>> p=getattr(sys,'__egginsert',0); sys.path[p:p]=new; sys.__egginsert = 
>> p+len(new)
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 10:39:52 AM UTC+5:30, chuck j wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> Reviewboard is using the same version of python for which i have 
>>> provided example as below
>>>
>>> [GCC 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46)] on linux2
>>> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> >>> import P4
>>>
>>> There are no Two version of p4python installed, how do i figure it out. 
>>> i can see my site-packages contains following files after p4python build 
>>> and install i.e P4.py, P4.pyc, P4.pyo, P4API.so
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 12:45:35 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:

 Is Review Board using the same version of Python? Any chance there are 
 now two copies of p4python installed?

 Christian


 On Apr 8, 2013, at 4:01, chuck j  wrote:

 Dear All, 

 This is very critical, I am still not able to add SSL enabled perforce 
 repository to reviewboard, Please help me.

 Since my machine was not having openssl 1.0.1, i need to build and 
 install this version of openssl.

 I followed the instruction from document, downloaded openssl 1.0.1e

 ./config --prefix=/usr/local --openssldir=/usr/local/openssl zlib 
 zlib-dynamic shared
 make 
 make test
 make install

 Then i did following step

 Edit /etc/ld.so.conf

 add to paths...
 /usr/local/lib64

 Update the run-time linker...
 # ldconfig

 verified with below command:

 ldd /usr/local/bin/openssl
 libssl.so.1.0.0 => /usr/local/lib64/libssl.so.1.0.0 
 (0x2b08a088c000)

Re: Error during adding Repository to SSL enabled perforce.

[Christian Hammond]

These e-mails keep ending up directed to me. Let's be sure they're all on the 
mailing list.

Christian

-- 
Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com

On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:05 AM, Christian Hammond  wrote:

> Sorry, but what generates libssl.so?
> 
> Just to be sure, did you restart Apache before adding a repository?
> 
> Christian
> 
> -- 
> Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
> 
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:09 PM, chuck j  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Ok All the P4.* files are present in
>> 
>> /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages
>> 
>> The libssl.so placed at /usr/local/lib64/libcrypto.so 
>> /usr/local/lib64/libssl.so
>> 
>> Do i need to do some manually changes in reviewboard setting which should 
>> pick correct P4API.so
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:11:39 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
>> Yeah, it's possible it's grabbing that one instead.
>> 
>> If p4python is successfully built using OpenSSL, the only thing I can think 
>> of to cause that error would be Review Board using an older copy somehow.
>> 
>> Where's the new P4.* files?
>> 
>> Christian
>> 
>> -- 
>> Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com
>> Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org
>> Beanbag, Inc. - http://www.beanbaginc.com
>> 
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:39 PM, chuck j  wrote:
>> 
>>> Here are some more information:
>>> 
>>> I can see there was old P4Python-2008.2-py2.7.egg-info file present at 
>>> site-packages folder, But i had make sure this version's P4.py, P4.pyc, 
>>> P4.pyo, P4API.so are moved to some safe place. Will this file make any 
>>> difference.
>>> 
>>> cat easy-install.pth
>>> 
>>> import sys; sys.__plen = len(sys.path)
>>> ./setuptools-0.6c11-py2.7.egg
>>> ./python_memcached-1.47-py2.7.egg
>>> ./recaptcha_client-1.0.6-py2.7.egg
>>> ./python_dateutil-1.5-py2.7.egg
>>> ./flup-1.0.3.dev_20110405-py2.7.egg
>>> ./PIL-1.1.6-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>>> ./python_ldap-2.3.13-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>>> ./MySQL_python-1.2.3-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>>> ./ReviewBoard-1.7.6-py2.7.egg
>>> ./pytz-2013b-py2.7.egg
>>> ./Pygments-1.6-py2.7.egg
>>> ./paramiko-1.10.0-py2.7.egg
>>> ./mimeparse-0.1.3-py2.7.egg
>>> ./Markdown-2.3.1-py2.7.egg
>>> ./docutils-0.10-py2.7.egg
>>> ./django_pipeline-1.2.24-py2.7.egg
>>> ./Djblets-0.7.11-py2.7.egg
>>> ./django_evolution-0.6.9-py2.7.egg
>>> ./Django-1.4.5-py2.7.egg
>>> ./pycrypto-2.6-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg
>>> ./feedparser-5.1.3-py2.7.egg
>>> import sys; new=sys.path[sys.__plen:]; del sys.path[sys.__plen:]; 
>>> p=getattr(sys,'__egginsert',0); sys.path[p:p]=new; sys.__egginsert = 
>>> p+len(new)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 10:39:52 AM UTC+5:30, chuck j wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> 
>>> Reviewboard is using the same version of python for which i have provided 
>>> example as below
>>> 
>>> [GCC 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46)] on linux2
>>> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> >>> import P4
>>> 
>>> There are no Two version of p4python installed, how do i figure it out. i 
>>> can see my site-packages contains following files after p4python build and 
>>> install i.e P4.py, P4.pyc, P4.pyo, P4API.so
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 12:45:35 AM UTC+5:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
>>> Is Review Board using the same version of Python? Any chance there are now 
>>> two copies of p4python installed?
>>> 
>>> Christian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 4:01, chuck j  wrote:
>>> 
 Dear All, 
 
 This is very critical, I am still not able to add SSL enabled perforce 
 repository to reviewboard, Please help me.
 
 Since my machine was not having openssl 1.0.1, i need to build and install 
 this version of openssl.
 
 I followed the instruction from document, downloaded openssl 1.0.1e
 
 ./config --prefix=/usr/local --openssldir=/usr/local/openssl zlib 
 zlib-dynamic shared
 make 
 make test
 make install
 
 Then i did following step
 
 Edit /etc/ld.so.conf
 
 add to paths...
 /usr/local/lib64
 
 Update the run-time linker...
 # ldconfig
 
 verified with below command:
 
 ldd /usr/local/bin/openssl
 libssl.so.1.0.0 => /usr/local/lib64/libssl.so.1.0.0 
 (0x2b08a088c000)
 libcrypto.so.1.0.0 => /usr/local/lib64/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 
 (0x2b08a0af1000)
 libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x003b2ac0)
 libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x003b2a40)
 /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x003b2a00)
 
 
 /usr/local/bin/openssl version
 
 OpenSSL 1.0.1e 11 Feb 2013
 
 
 Then I build p4python with --ssl swtich.
 
 python setup.py build --apidir /root/work/src/p4api-2012.2.585708 --ssl 
 /usr/local/lib64
 
 API Release 2012.2
 running build
 run