[SyncEvolution] SyncEvolution 1.1.99.2 ready for testing

[Patrick Ohly]

On Do, 2011-02-10 at 09:44 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly at gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Mi, 2011-02-09 at 22:28 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> Two issues. First one is easy, is there a source file? :-)
> >
> > Yes, but I have been hiding it so that people don't start packaging
> > it ;-)
> >
> > http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/sources/experimental/syncevolution-1.1.99.2.tar.gz
> >
> > Seriously, I'd rather have some folks here on this list test that
> > version before it gets rolled out to some unsuspecting distro users. The
> > next version should be suitable for an unstable distro again.
> 
> I'm not planning on pushing it to an "unsuspecting distro user" I push
> it through my build system and test that it will compile on Fedora
> rawhide using gcc 4.6 and all the fun things its introducing to give
> "upstream" details of any issues so that they may review them within a
> reasonable time.

That's of course worthwhile - thanks for testing that.

> > Why is the usage of the Bluez gdbus a problem? I thought we had resolved
> > the name clash by renaming the symbols in the SyncEvolution source code.
> 
> Why is the submission of patches upstream a problem?

I submitted them and Marcel has not responded, that's all. My impression
is that the separate Bluez gdbus is dead and will never see a separate,
official release.

So in Fedora there really is a separate library and gupnp uses it?

> As for chaanges of namespaces as far as I can tell its been shoved it
> into a sub directory of syncevolution. The readme in the source tells
> me as much when it documents the script to split out the patches. With
> it in a sub directory the standard build of syncevolution doesn't find
> it because its not in the ld path, if you add it to the path it
> conflicts with the other library if installed.

I'm not seeing the issue with it not being found during the build. What
is your configure line?

Regarding the library name clash: I agree, the library name should be
different and it should get installed into /usr/lib/syncevolution. I'll
check that.

> > If someone has a patch which allows to switch between the Bluez gdbus
> > and glib gdbus, then I'd be happy to include it. I just don't have time
> > to do that myself.
> 
> Personally I'd prefer if the patches were upstream and there was just
> one of them and we didn't have to worry about hacks to "switch".

Yes, of course. Me too, but that's outside of my control. I was thinking
of the glib gdbus here.

-- 
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.