Hi, I have forgot to thank you and the instructions that you have provided are proven working.Thank you again Erik. Regards. Ryle.Msinc/ITDept From: "users-request@lists.ledgersmb.org" <users-request@lists.ledgersmb.org> To: users@lists.ledgersmb.org Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 4:00 AM Subject: users Digest, Vol 20, Issue 6 Send users mailing list submissions to     users@lists.ledgersmb.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit     https://lists.ledgersmb.org/mailman/listinfo/users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to     users-request@lists.ledgersmb.org You can reach the person managing the list at     users-owner@lists.ledgersmb.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of users digest..." Today's Topics:   1. Fwd:  Debian packages for LedgerSMB (Robert J. Clay)   2. Re: Are there any subscribers using LedgerSMB versions older       than 1.4? (Erik Huelsmann)   3. Exchange rate (Erik Huelsmann)   4. Re: Are there any subscribers using LedgerSMB    versions older       than 1.4? (Erik Huelsmann) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 18:07:59 -0500 From: "Robert J. Clay" <rjclay@gmail.com> To: users@lists.ledgersmb.org Subject: [ledgersmb-users] Fwd:  Debian packages for LedgerSMB Message-ID:     <CAL4BjXk44bu5QQrzwLXaJ5YeCQ2KnkebYSOFWiddXOC5AC-Hcw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Forgot to cc this to the mailing list... ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Robert J. Clay <rjclay@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [ledgersmb-users] Debian packages for LedgerSMB To: Nicolas Couchoud <nicolas.couchoud__ledgersmb@normalesup.org> Hi Nicolas! On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 10:07 AM Nicolas Couchoud <nicolas.couchoud__ledgersmb@normalesup.org> wrote:

  Hi,

  As far as I have understood, there are two sorts of Debian packages for LedgerSMB : * Debian regular repositories just contain packages called « ledgersmb » ;

  Yes, that's the official Debian package for the LedgerSMB application (which also migrates over to the developmental version of Ubuntu).  The most recent is the one for the most recently released version of LedgerSMB, 1.6.9.  (Released just a few days ago.)

* your repository apt.ledgersmb.org contains packages with names like « ledgersmb-1.5 » and « ledgersmb-1.5-apache ».

  Yes, the ledgersmb-1.5 packages are for the 1.5.x versions of LedgerSMB, with the latest being v1.5.24 (just released a few days ago).  The ones like  ledgersmb-1.5-apache are for web proxies if one wants to use one.  The 1.5.x versions will be supported by the project until December of this year (2019) when it will see its End Of Life for community support..   There are also the ledgersmb-1.6 packages, which are for the 1.6.x versions of the LedgerSMB application (the current stable).  It also has the associated packages for a web proxy selection.

  So, I feel a bit lost... Is there one preferred sort of package ? Are some of these obsolete ?

  The ledgersmb-1.5 packages aren't "obsolete" but they are for the old-stable version of LedgerSMB (1.5.x), which as noted will see End of Life in December 2019.  (Whereas the 1.6.x versions are good for LedgerSMB Community Support until December of 2021.)  Their advantage is that due to the availability of dependencies, the ledgersmb-1.5 packages can be backported to older versions of Debian (or Ubuntu) than the ledgersmb-1.6 packages currently can be.   The primary difference between the 'ledgersmb' package and the 'ledgersmb-1.x' packages is that due to Debian Policy (regarding embedded libraries), the ledgersmb packages uses the system installed packages for the Dojo libraries while the ledgersmb-1.x packages use the embedded versions of the Dojo libraries that are released with each version of the LedgerSMB application. -- Robert James Clay rjclay@gmail.com, jame@rocasa.us -- Robert J. Clay rjclay@gmail.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 00:30:59 +0100 From: Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@gmail.com> To: Peeter Pärtel <peeter@sigma.ee> Cc: users@lists.ledgersmb.org Subject: Re: [ledgersmb-users] Are there any subscribers using     LedgerSMB versions older than 1.4? Message-ID:     <CACOoB6jENKkx8-FOc7tJY2PhcthqOyiLuFG8Vfs0rrCHmosrvQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Peeter, On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 4:05 PM Peeter Pärtel <peeter@sigma.ee> wrote: still on 1.2.26 as it is the last version where I can freely change all

existing invoices. As mistakes happen or clients want some other description etc changes on them, this is really important to us.

Yes, you brought up that point before, I remember. Actually, you were not the only one to bring it up -- I've got a few other contacts that would really like this functionality to be re-introduced again. Some time back, I went over the possibilities to do so with Chris and we found a way to extend LedgerSMB 1.3+ to support both your use-case and still maintain Chris's position about not deleting data (maintaining a full audit trail). Unfortunately, the pipeline for 1.7 is very full at the moment and I'm not likely to be able to address this idea and build it into 1.7 (as that release is planned for this summer). But as latest version of Debian where 1.2.26 works is Debian 8 and it's end

of life is June 30th 2020 we are planning to move away from LedgerSMB to some other software. Already migrating some companies starting 2019 and rest is planned starting from 2020.

It's not that I'd like to encourage you to keep working on 1.2, but if you want to keep working on 1.2, I think that version can be made to work on Debian 9+ quite easily.

If there has been any changes in allowing to change existing invoices (both parts and services), then it would be good to know before we have left completely.

Yes, there has been a change in allowing existing invoices to be changed in the sense that the project now has a way to maintain full audit trail, working COGS *and* allow the changed invoices. Which means we're no longer against allowing it. The actual code to allow it though is yet to be written. Thanks for taking the time to respond! Regards, Erik.