Re: [Evolution-hackers] [PATCH 1/2] e_cal_new_system_foo() should create corresponding source in GConf

2011-05-27 Thread Christophe Dumez
On 05/10/2011 01:43 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:40 +0100, Dumez, Christophe wrote: I have tested the patch but it does not seem to help. I don't know what the reason is yet. It may depend on earlier fixes? Can you show your patch? This e-mail and any attachments may co

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [PATCH 1/2] e_cal_new_system_foo() should create corresponding source in GConf

2011-05-11 Thread Christophe Dumez
Hi, No, I'm definitely not working on this (EDS), I thought you were :) I actually followed Patrick's advice and I executed Evolution once so that it created the system addressbook. This way I can work around the bug and keep on working on the QtContacts backend for EDS. I don't have time to loo

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [PATCH 1/2] e_cal_new_system_foo() should create corresponding source in GConf

2011-05-11 Thread David Woodhouse
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:40 +0100, Dumez, Christophe wrote: > I have tested the patch but it does not seem to help. I don't know > what the reason is yet. I'm going to assume you're still happily working on this and don't need my assistance, until such time as you turn up on the #evolution IRC cha

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [PATCH 1/2] e_cal_new_system_foo() should create corresponding source in GConf

2011-05-10 Thread David Woodhouse
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 10:19 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > It seems that a similar problem exists in libebook if no address books > were created already by Evolution. Chris is seeing such an issue with > 2.32.3 in MeeGo. Oh, tits. I hate the fact that all this code is so *gratuitously* separate. Bec

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [PATCH 1/2] e_cal_new_system_foo() should create corresponding source in GConf

2011-05-10 Thread David Woodhouse
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:40 +0100, Dumez, Christophe wrote: > > I have tested the patch but it does not seem to help. I don't know > what the reason is yet. It may depend on earlier fixes? Can you show your patch? > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [PATCH 1/2] e_cal_new_system_foo() should create corresponding source in GConf

2011-05-10 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Di, 2011-05-10 at 09:34 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 10:19 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > It seems that a similar problem exists in libebook if no address books > > were created already by Evolution. Chris is seeing such an issue with > > 2.32.3 in MeeGo. > > Oh, tits.

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [PATCH 1/2] e_cal_new_system_foo() should create corresponding source in GConf

2011-05-10 Thread Patrick Ohly
Hello! It seems that a similar problem exists in libebook if no address books were created already by Evolution. Chris is seeing such an issue with 2.32.3 in MeeGo. We probably need to add the "create GConf entry for local:system" part to libebook in the gnome-2-32 branch. Is that something that

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [PATCH 1/2] e_cal_new_system_foo() should create corresponding source in GConf

2011-05-10 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Di, 2011-05-10 at 11:40 +0100, Dumez, Christophe wrote: > I have tested the patch but it does not seem to help. I don't know what the > reason is yet. If you have never run Evolution, there will be no gconf entries for addressbook. The second part of the fix was to have libecal create this ent

[Evolution-hackers] [PATCH 1/2] e_cal_new_system_foo() should create corresponding source in GConf

2011-04-15 Thread David Woodhouse
--- calendar/libecal/e-cal.c | 56 +++-- 1 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/calendar/libecal/e-cal.c b/calendar/libecal/e-cal.c index 6835d45..69ff9c7 100644 --- a/calendar/libecal/e-cal.c +++ b/calendar/libecal/e-cal.c @@ -102