On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 09:37 -0400, IGnatius T Foobar wrote: > > Since we do really want to remove the fork and pick up packages from > > upstream, I can change the apis in evolution related packages if a new > > set of apis with some suffix is provided from libical upstream. > > > Many of you have probably already read this on the libical mailing list, > but just in case: > > I have applied Chenthill's memory management patches (only to the > 'libical' directory and to the examples -- still have to do the > 'libicalcap' and 'libicalss' directories) using function names ending in > "_r". For example, icalcomponent_as_ical_string() is now simply a > wrapper around icalcomponent_as_ical_string_r() which places the new > string buffer on the ring before returning it to the caller. The > functions whose names end in "_r" have had Chenthill's memory management > patches applied to them. > > Do we still need to add the HANDLE_LIBICAL_MEMORY hack to make the old > function names act like the new ones? Chenthill's most recent message > (quoted above) seems to imply that the Evolution team is willing to move > to the new function names. Let me know.
IMHO, HANDLE_LIBICAL_MEMORY can be removed. thanks, Chenthill. _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolutionfirstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers