On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 09:49 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:14 -0500, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
> > 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. Wouldn't it be possible to use a different directory, e.g. "mail/local-index/folders.db"? That would avoid both problems. > > 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. Right. For me, folders.db showed up as having 7 unread mails in it. The mbox parser probably found some satisfactory ^From occurrences. It also made local mail unusable, since it would constantly throw errors and fail to update vfolders (details are a little bit foggy at the moment, but I remember being hindered to the point of not being able to read mail). > > 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] Ok, if I can just remove the old indexes/summaries, I'm happy :) > 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. I still think relocating folders.db is a better option, since it would work for everyone without necessitating an upgrade. -- Hans Petter _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers