Re: [Evolution-hackers] Merging the collaboration providers in a single package

2010-10-19 Thread chen
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Merging the collaboration providers in a single package

2010-10-19 Thread Suman Manjunath
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:

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Merging the collaboration providers in a single package

2010-10-19 Thread Sankar P
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Merging the collaboration providers in a single package

2010-10-18 Thread Matthew Barnes
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Merging the collaboration providers in a single package

2010-10-18 Thread Sankar P
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,