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

> > 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

Reply via email to