Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Ross Burton
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:54 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: I definitely won't switch away from maildir as my format of choice because it integrates nicely with offlineimap. Sure, I think users should have that freedom. Camel's local folder implementation has that built in. This new

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:54 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Patrick Ohly patrick.o...@gmx.de wrote: On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:19 +0530, Chenthill wrote: On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:09 -0500, Reid Thompson wrote: On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 17:34 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: Really, we aren't inventing a new format. Its mbox, but organized a bit differently, like how some providers store, (Exchange, GW, (IMAP4 ?) store. Perhaps a naive question, but does it have to be stored as mbox? Could we not just

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread chen
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:54 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Patrick Ohly patrick.o...@gmx.de wrote: On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:19 +0530, Chenthill wrote: On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:09 -0500, Reid Thompson wrote: On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 07:50 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 13:18 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: We are debating the merits of the actual mail storage, not the summary data. I have wiped out folders.db often enough that I won't use Evolution when it switches to storing

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Michael Meeks
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill wrote: One advantage which I see with #1 is that its a standard way. One thing about both approaches, is that they will consume more space; eg. on my 'Sent' folder with 21k messages - on average (on ext3) we will chew ~2k of space for each of

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Reid Thompson
Reid Thompson wrote: Patrick Ohly wrote: On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:55 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: Maildir is good, none denies it. But maildir is already there, but not sure how many use it. I do, and I know several other people who do +1 The local default mbox account on my system is

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
Matthew Barnes wrote: On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:56 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: This just means the proper LARGEFILE flags are not being used at compile time. Either EDS's configure isn't doing proper checks or else Evolution itself isn't doing proper checks and there is some sort of

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: Matthew Barnes wrote: there was concern that simply turning it on would somehow break existing installs. I'm fuzzy on the details, but vaguely recall it being about a field size in some binary file being dependent on sizeof(off_t), which would change with

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Milan Crha
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 11:35 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: The summary files would have had this problem, but they would have just been regenerated, so not really an issue. Hi, a) it's similar as moving from 32bit to 64bit architecture or the other way; evo crashes for these

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Zan Lynx
On 12/16/09 5:18 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote: I fell it will be slower compared to the other approach. You dont rewrite the file entirely at all in normal usage. Setting mail flags was mentioned as the reason for not using maildir. Adding a mail flag to an mbox mail requires rewriting the whole

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Moving from the single mbox file format for the local folders

2009-12-16 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
On 12/16/2009 02:40 PM, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 11:35 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: The summary files would have had this problem, but they would have just been regenerated, so not really an issue. Hi, a) it's similar as moving from 32bit to 64bit