From patrick.ohly at intel.com  Mon Dec 11 20:13:41 2017
From: patrick.ohly at intel.com (Patrick Ohly)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:13:41 +0100
Subject: [SyncEvolution] [Patch] Fails to build with libical 3.0.0
In-Reply-To: <0acbd759c2e7dac518852238be71c3dbb1761247.camel@redhat.com>
References: <0acbd759c2e7dac518852238be71c3dbb1761247.camel@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1513023221.5979.193.camel@intel.com>

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 12:45 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> 	Hi,
> syncevolution 1.5.2 fails to build with libical 3.0.0.
> I attached a patch which makes it build. Let me know if anything is
> wrong, please.

I've not forgotten about this. Thanks for the patch, I'll try it with
libical 3.0. The actual upstream patch inevitably will have to be more
complex (= more ifdefs), because SyncEvolution still needs to compile
for distros with older libical versions.

-- 
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 patrick.ohly at intel.com  Thu Dec 14 14:59:34 2017
From: patrick.ohly at intel.com (Patrick Ohly)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:59:34 +0100
Subject: [SyncEvolution] [Patch] Fails to build with libical 3.0.0
In-Reply-To: <0acbd759c2e7dac518852238be71c3dbb1761247.camel@redhat.com>
References: <0acbd759c2e7dac518852238be71c3dbb1761247.camel@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1513263574.5979.213.camel@intel.com>

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 12:45 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> -	itime = icaltime_from_timet (now, 0);
> +	itime = icaltime_from_timet_with_zone (now, 0,
> NULL);

Upstream replaced icaltime_from_timed(x, 0) with
icaltime_from_timet_with_zone(x, 0, icaltimezone_get_utc_timezone()).
Is that perhaps also what should be done in SyncEvolution? I haven't
tested whether it makes a difference yet.

-- 
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 patrick.ohly at intel.com  Thu Dec 14 15:26:09 2017
From: patrick.ohly at intel.com (Patrick Ohly)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:26:09 +0100
Subject: [SyncEvolution] [Patch] Fails to build with libical 3.0.0
In-Reply-To: <1513263574.5979.213.camel@intel.com>
References: <0acbd759c2e7dac518852238be71c3dbb1761247.camel@redhat.com>
	 <1513263574.5979.213.camel@intel.com>
Message-ID: <1513265169.5979.214.camel@intel.com>

On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 15:59 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 12:45 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> > -	itime = icaltime_from_timet (now, 0);
> > +	itime = icaltime_from_timet_with_zone (now, 0,
> > NULL);
> 
> Upstream replaced icaltime_from_timed(x, 0)
> with
> icaltime_from_timet_with_zone(x, 0, icaltimezone_get_utc_timezone()).
> Is that perhaps also what should be done in SyncEvolution?

No, internally icaltime_from_timed(x, 0) was implemented as
icaltime_from_timet_with_zone(x, 0,?NULL), just like your patch does, s
 that should be fine.

-- 
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.