On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 15:07 +0100, Rob Bradford wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 10:57 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > Why was it necessary to break backwards compatibility?
[...]
> For reference the bug in question is #465374. If we had linked
> libedataserver to libebackend we'd still have the same licensing
> problem.

Okay, I see. The bug tracker entry clarifies the change and I agree that
it was necessary, I just wish that it had been handled a bit better
(mentioned on the list beforehand, bug number included in the change
log, ABI changed mentioned in 2.24 release announcement). I don't think
we need to discuss this further, but let's keep it in mind.

I guess I'll avoid the hard dependency on a specific libedataserver via
ldopen/dlsym. I might go all the way and wrap all the EDS functions that
I call; I have a hunch that this might allow me to provide just one
binary release because the functions that SyncEvolution depends on
haven't changed for a while (need to test this, of course).

-- 
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.estamos.de/

_______________________________________________
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

Reply via email to