Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version

2007-10-04 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 09:57 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
>   Cue, screaming ... please read:
> 
> http://lxr.go-oo.org/source/dba/connectivity/source/drivers/evoab2/EApi.cxx#046
> 
>   and reconsider ;-) be aware that it takes weeks to months to get that
> change up-stream, and months to get a new version of OO.o out, and all
> the while OO.o will ~silently fail to work with people's new 'clean'
> renamed library e-d-s :-)

Oye, I wasn't aware of the pain involved.  Thanks Michael and Srini for
clarifying this.  At least now it's on record for the next time someone
has the same bright idea.  :)

Matthew Barnes

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


[Evolution-hackers] Patch that fixes compilation warnings on iconv-detect.c

2007-10-04 Thread Philip Van Hoof
These compilation warnings prevent -Wall -Werror as the configure stage
fails if CFLAGS is set that way.

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=483301

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://www.pvanhoof.be/blog




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


[Evolution-hackers] EBook query string format?

2007-10-04 Thread Jules Colding
Hi,

Does anyone know the format of the query string in EBook functions such
as "e_book_backend_db_cache_get_contacts()"? 

Naturally I can start digesting "e-book-backend-sexp.c" but I would
rather not...

Thanks,
  jules


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


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version

2007-10-04 Thread Ross Burton
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:05 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> Even I would have loved this if we can get all the friends to be 2.22.
> Unfortunately GtkHTML can't be 2.22 as it is already 3.xx. I felt that
> synchronizing the minor versions is fine. I'm not really against it, if
> there aren't any major objections to this.

I'm fine with GtkHTML being switched to 3.22, but I think it should be
the only exception, EDS should jump to 2.22.  No point not syncing it
entirely when its possible.

Ross
-- 
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www: http://www.burtonini.com./
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version

2007-10-04 Thread Michael Meeks
Hi Matthew,

On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:00 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> > And while we're at it, can we please drop the meaningless -1.2 suffix
> > from the library names (e.g. libedataserver-1.2.so)?  As far as I can
> > tell this is just an artifact from an age before the EDS sonames were
> > properly versioned.

Cue, screaming ... please read:

http://lxr.go-oo.org/source/dba/connectivity/source/drivers/evoab2/EApi.cxx#046

and reconsider ;-) be aware that it takes weeks to months to get that
change up-stream, and months to get a new version of OO.o out, and all
the while OO.o will ~silently fail to work with people's new 'clean'
renamed library e-d-s :-)

AFAIR the name versioning was originally intended to ensure you could
compile & develop multiple versions of evo. on the same system.

> I don't think those application would be happy to do this. There are a
> few apps that use the .so directly without pkgconfig (iirc
> OpenOffice.org). 

Quite - we build our OO.o integration (which since it is up-stream has
to run on ~all existing systems - cf. the ISV problem ...), with
internal headers (to unwind the ABI breakage), and explicit dlopening &
hooking out of symbols etc.

> Unless there is a clear nod from the stake holders of those projects, I
> wouldn't be favor of doing this.

Thanks ! :-)

Of course, as long as the dlopens still work, I'm fine with renaming
the core library (to suit people's personal hygiene issues) as long as
we have a compat symlink in perpetuity ;-)

Thanks,

Michael.

-- 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


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