On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:35 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:25 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:

> > I wasn't (am no longer) proposing to move "camel/" out of e-d-s. I was
> > proposing to put a configure.ac file in its directory. Moving Camel out
> > of evolution-data-server/ is not the scope nor point of this thread.
> For what purpose?  Camel depends on libedataserver.

Being a developer, I can probably fix that chicken and egg problem in a
few hacking evenings.

> So you've found a problem with the Red Hat packaging, in that it treats
> all of EDS a single library.  File a bug with Red Hat, and notice that
> Debian, Maemo, and OpenEmbedded (at least) already have split EDS
> packages.

I very much applaud what OpenEmbedded, Maemo, OpenedHand and Debian did
in terms of packaging. It's indeed the right way.

> In the scheme of things this is a very minor issue which effects very
> few people.  I'd prefer to see effort spent on fixing bugs and memory
> leaks.

I agree it's a minor issue. But things can happen in parallel. This is
why people developed round robin algorithms in schedulers :). Else the
minor ones or very-low-priority ones never get any attention from the
processing unit (because the large ones eat up exactly 100% of the
processing units time).

However, I do agree that we are putting to much of a discussion/fight on
it. It should probably simply be a patch and a get-it-over-with commit.

ps. Is there a beach at the Boston Summit? Maybe we can do a beach-fight
about it? :-) (ps. I'm not yet sure if I will attent the summit).

Philip Van Hoof, software developer at x-tend 
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
work: vanhoof at x-tend dot be 
http://www.pvanhoof.be - http://www.x-tend.be

Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to