Re: [Evolution-hackers] (summarize ][) New 'eclient' branch in eds

2011-05-10 Thread Milan Crha
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:00 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 14:37 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: So here left basically three things, a) merging some API in utils, Hi, I committed a change, introducing libedataserverui/e-client-utils.h/.c It adds new typedef enum {

Re: [Evolution-hackers] (summarize ][) New 'eclient' branch in eds

2011-05-10 Thread Milan Crha
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 12:04 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:49 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: It's just because of (so called) consistency. With merging common error codes into E_CLIENT_ERROR_ namespace I realized that checking for particular errors will not be that easy as

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

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 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. I hate

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 use

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.

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-10 Thread Milan Crha
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 17:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Mi, 2011-05-04 at 09:41 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Mi, 2011-05-04 at 07:50 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: I would expect that with CALOBJ_MOD_THIS it may remove only exact component, for uid + NULL-rid the master object (which implies