On Saturday September 20 2014 14:42:24 Marko Käning wrote:
> that’s a really cool feature!
>
> Wow, so KDE actually gives a real benefit for OSX users who do not want to
> keep their IMAP email locally!
Yes. And kontact works like a dream on a fast machine. I had to patch imap-uw
in order beca
Hi René,
On 20 Sep 2014, at 14:38 , René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Erm? Spotlight doesn't index remote email at all unless you allow Mail.app to
> store a copy locally (with remote and local both potentially on localhost...)
> Which is why I actually use Nepumuk now that kontact/kmail has become my
On Saturday September 20 2014 13:35:03 Marko Käning wrote:
> Hi René,
>
> On 20 Sep 2014, at 13:28 , René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> > … presuming he didn't have …
>
> She!!
s (and there I was wondering if I was going to ask how one pronounces
the name ... :))
Sorry, Mojca!
R.
__
On Saturday September 20 2014 21:41:35 Ian Wadham wrote:
> If you can fool one dependency chain or another into coniformity with the
> others re ODBC, well and good. It is not as though Nepomuk/Soprano has
> any value or is ever used on Apple OS X, which already has Spotlight and
> has had it for
Hi Ryan,
On 20/09/2014, at 9:04 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2014, at 5:34 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>>
>>> things, ...). To start with it complains about something I'm not
>>> familiar with: "Can't install libiodbc because conflicting ports are
>>> active: unixODBC"
>>
>> *It* being
On Saturday September 20 2014 06:04:41 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> digikam depends on kdelibs4 which depends on soprano which depends on
> libiodbc. libiodbc conflicts with unixODBC. You will encounter the above
> error message if you already have unixODBC installed, perhaps as dependency
> of som
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 5:34 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
>> things, ...). To start with it complains about something I'm not
>> familiar with: "Can't install libiodbc because conflicting ports are
>> active: unixODBC"
>
> *It* being what? I cannot recall having seen that error when I first
> in
On Saturday September 20 2014 11:20:04 Mojca Miklavec wrote:
So I uploaded a diff for my current version of the Portfile:
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/45107 . The upstream bug report is here:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=339180
The trac ticket has a Portfile patch against the one cu
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 9:52 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> On Friday September 19 2014 19:42:06 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>
>>> No ... it was easier to just remove the offending include directory ...
>>
>>That's an unacceptable solution. If a user interrupts the build, that
>>directory might never be put
