On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 09:15 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 11:40 -0500, JP Rosevear wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 22:53 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > > > > > > Ok, and I had to remove groupwise from the camel build. It was > > > including a LOT of crap it has no business including. This needs to > > > be fixed, using plugins and whatnot, and not hacking things up in > > > camel to force it to work. > > > > Do you have a list of specifics or a list of restrictions for camel > > requirements on this? I think we might have to make it temporarily > > fugly until the new camel groupwise provider is finished in a couple of > > weeks (uses soap instead of imap grossness). I'm guessing the real > > nastiness is the configuration goo that could now be eplugins? > > Well it uses a huge pile of crap that doesn't belong in camel. Stuff > based on gobject, e-account/e-account-list, gconf. Some stuff from > evolution's tree, like e-passwords, and e-error (which would require, > at the very least libedataserverui dependencies which is totally > unacceptable).
> Worse, stuff from eds/servers/ which must be built after camel anyway. > I wonder if the groupwise provider could just continue in evolution, as an extension plugin to libcamel. -- Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
