Hello Guys, On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:14 -0500, Hans Petter Jansson wrote: > [ Adding evolution-hackers to Cc since this contains potentially useful > feedback and some questions ] > > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 18:06 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 00:40 -0500, Hans Petter Jansson wrote: > > > > Note 2: If you ran the newer version of Evolution previously, you should > > > delete the sqlite database it creates before reverting to the old one - > > > otherwise it will think the sqlite database is an mbox and try to index > > > it, which will cause errors. Delete ~/.evolution/mail/local/folders.db*. > > > That - is really bad. Can we not name our db in some way that this > > doesn't happen ? is there really no solution here ? if not, why are > > these databases in a place where older versions get confused & start > > doing stupid things ? - can we not put them somewhere else ? > Michael, Its n't possible to keep it there still not findable by the old version. AFAICS, { ".msf", ".ev-summary", ".ev-summary-meta", ".ibex.index", ".ibex.index.data", ".cmeta", ".lock" } are the possible extensions that the old version of Evolution ignores. But these have definite meanings and possible they exist as locks, metafiles or old-type-summaries. Naming the new summary that way would probably erase the real data.
> That's a question for the Evo team, I guess - it looks like it could be > trivially fixed by moving the folder.db somewhere else, or calling it > folder.index or folder.ibex.index or whatever Evolution traditionally > filters out. > HPJ, the summary can't be named like this, since, its possible that something like this already exists. .ibex.index has a traditional meaning and would be more of abusing it in the newer versions. > To Evolution's credit, my 500MB folder.db binary blob didn't cause it to > crash - it showed up as a bogus local mail folder after about 15 minutes > of disk churn - but it did throw errors whenever it needed to pull data > for vfolders. > But, the old version shouldn't touch the folders.db automatically, meaning the new summary would be safe, unless the user manually deletes or adds mails to it. > Also, it looks like old summary/index files aren't removed - does it > require both the sqlite database and summaries now? It increases disk > space consumption quite a bit. That is left purposefully. Incase you are a user switching across versions, probably you would have to recreate summaries every time you do. But first time, we just migrate and don't care later on. So if you aren't a user of that category, a rm of it manually should suffice. [probably some more summaries left on the other accounts] > > > Switching between versions, should work right ? > Michael, AFAICS, it should work fine, we don't touch old summaries written by old version. If it happens, file a bug (I dont think it happens ):-) Just that the old version reports you of a new folder folders.db. Should we ship a patch for older Evolution versions to ignore folders.db? May be worth for power users of SLEs and RHEs, who might still use older version & new version. -Srini _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers