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 Evolutionemail@example.com http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers