Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version
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
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version
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
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
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 11:31 +, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: There have been many requests regarding syncing the versions of Evolution (currently 2.12) and GNOME (2.20). I feel that it would be fine, if we just sync the minor versions. Evolution 2.22 GtkHTML 3.22 Evolution Data Server 1.22 Evolution Exchange 2.22 I'd like to see EDS synced completely to 2.22. 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
Am Mittwoch, den 03.10.2007, 13:43 +0200 schrieb Jules Colding: Does it really matter? But, well, I doesn't care so please go ahead... it does. it's annoying that i have to remember which version corresponds to which gnome release for gtk+, glib, evofriends and other modules (i'm happy that atk, at-spi gail already switched to the gnome versioning a few months back), both from a bugsquad and a release-team point of view. andre -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | failed http://www.iomc.de/ signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 11:31 +, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: There have been many requests regarding syncing the versions of Evolution (currently 2.12) and GNOME (2.20). I feel that it would be fine, if we just sync the minor versions. Evolution 2.22 GtkHTML 3.22 Evolution Data Server 1.22 Evolution Exchange 2.22 +1 Since Evolution is an official GNOME component I think it makes a lot of sense to keep the versions sync'ed with the mothership. Matthew Barnes ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 14:17 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: it does. it's annoying that i have to remember which version corresponds to which gnome release for gtk+, glib, evofriends and other modules (i'm happy that atk, at-spi gail already switched to the gnome versioning a few months back), both from a bugsquad and a release-team point of view. For what little it's worth, I agree the versions should be synced. In addition to the above, it's much simpler to deal with SVN branch naming etc. when you only have one version number to worry about and it's the same across all the components. -- --- Paul D. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.mad-scientist.us Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional. --Mad Scientist ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 09:03 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 11:31 +, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: There have been many requests regarding syncing the versions of Evolution (currently 2.12) and GNOME (2.20). I feel that it would be fine, if we just sync the minor versions. Evolution 2.22 GtkHTML 3.22 Evolution Data Server 1.22 Evolution Exchange 2.22 +1 Since Evolution is an official GNOME component I think it makes a lot of sense to keep the versions sync'ed with the mothership. +1 here too, assuming my vote counts. :) This will make it easier for us disto maintainers. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about gtkhtml, because it's major rev is already past 2. Daniel ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 12:53 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 11:31 +, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: There have been many requests regarding syncing the versions of Evolution (currently 2.12) and GNOME (2.20). I feel that it would be fine, if we just sync the minor versions. Evolution 2.22 GtkHTML 3.22 Evolution Data Server 1.22 Evolution Exchange 2.22 I'd like to see EDS synced completely to 2.22. 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. Applications that link to E-D-S would have to be recompiled obviously, but as long as they're using pkgconfig correctly they should not require any code changes (I think). Now is the perfect time to drop it if we're ever going to. Matthew Barnes ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 16:51 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: Applications that link to E-D-S would have to be recompiled obviously, but as long as they're using pkgconfig correctly they should not require any code changes (I think). I knew this claim would come back to bite me. The pkgconfig meta-data files in EDS have the -1.2 suffix in their names, so applications would have to alter their configure.ac and pkgconfig files slightly. But I think the rest of my argument still stands. Matthew Barnes ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version
Matthew, On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 16:51 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 12:53 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 11:31 +, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: There have been many requests regarding syncing the versions of Evolution (currently 2.12) and GNOME (2.20). I feel that it would be fine, if we just sync the minor versions. Evolution 2.22 GtkHTML 3.22 Evolution Data Server 1.22 Evolution Exchange 2.22 I'd like to see EDS synced completely to 2.22. 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. Isn't that -1.2 is the API version? Applications that link to E-D-S would have to be recompiled obviously, but as long as they're using pkgconfig correctly they should not require any code changes (I think). 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). Unless there is a clear nod from the stake holders of those projects, I wouldn't be favor of doing this. The old version of apps break with new Evolution/EDS. Lot of those apps don't have a 6 month and takes a lot to ship a update for the old version to cope up with new EDS. -Srini. ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Synching Evolution/GNOME version
Ross, 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. -Srini. On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 12:53 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 11:31 +, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: There have been many requests regarding syncing the versions of Evolution (currently 2.12) and GNOME (2.20). I feel that it would be fine, if we just sync the minor versions. Evolution 2.22 GtkHTML 3.22 Evolution Data Server 1.22 Evolution Exchange 2.22 I'd like to see EDS synced completely to 2.22. Ross ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
