On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:21 -0600, Sankar P wrote:
On 10/18/2010 at 07:01 PM, in message
1287408711.3126.11.ca...@localhost.localdomain, Matthew Barnes
mbar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 12:10 +0530, chen wrote:
The other solution was to maintain all exchange providers in a
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:31, chen pchenth...@novell.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:21 -0600, Sankar P wrote:
On 10/18/2010 at 07:01 PM, in message
1287408711.3126.11.ca...@localhost.localdomain, Matthew Barnes
mbar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 12:10 +0530, chen wrote:
I somewhat agree with Matthew on this one. If we glob all the
providers together:
a) Distro A doesn't want to support Provider X. You'd say we'll have a
compiler option to not compile X. Why does Distro A even need the
sources for X (and eventually ship it too)?
For the same reason how it
Hi,
We had discussed about merging the collaborative providers such as
evolution-exchange, evolution-mapi, groupwise, kolab and evolution-ews
(on development) into a single package in previous community meeting.
There are certain advantages and some concern areas in it, let me
summarize them on
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 12:10 +0530, chen wrote:
The other solution was to maintain all exchange providers in a single
package, merging evolution-exchange, evolution-ews and evolution-mapi
into a single package. Other collaboration providers like
evolution-groupwise and evolution-kolab (yet to
On 10/18/2010 at 07:01 PM, in message
1287408711.3126.11.ca...@localhost.localdomain, Matthew Barnes
mbar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 12:10 +0530, chen wrote:
The other solution was to maintain all exchange providers in a single
package, merging evolution-exchange,
