On Mi, 2010-02-10 at 11:08 +0000, Pietro Battiston wrote: > Il giorno mar, 09/02/2010 alle 17.19 -0400, David Bremner ha scritto: > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:10:58 +0100, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > This bug is fixed by the 1.0-alpha packages in Debian experimental. > > > > > > Thanks for the update. I knew that you had fixed it, but didn't quite > > > follow up on when this will reach users. > > > > Experimental is for software that "might lose your data". If you think > > it is a good idea, I can upload a beta to unstable where it will get > > more testing (and I assume migrate to Ubuntu).
Beta 1 might mangle up config data, but only when doing unusual things. Better wait for beta 2. We just merged a bunch of code into master for the GUI, so let's give it another week or two to stabilize and getting tested. > Just for your information: > - for Ubuntu Lucid (out in April), the date for the "Debian Import > Freeze", after which Debian packages are no more automatically imported > from Debian, is unfortunately tomorrow (feb. 11). > > - there is another deadline, on the 18th, after which even the "import > on explicit request" mechanism generally stops. Even assuming that the > migration from Debian unstable to testing is as fast as possible (10 > days), it's too late, but still, if the package happens to land in > unstable few days after the 18th, I think an exception could be > obtained. So 1.0 won't make it. Is there a chance to get a 0.9.2 compiled properly (libical used by libsynthesis) into Lucid? Does that depend on David updating something or can the Ubuntu team do the update themselves? 0.9.2 is stable and has some worthwhile, albeit not essential improvements over 0.9.1 > That said, just as a user, I'm a bit confused about the difference > between packages named "syncevolution-evolution" and the ones just named > "syncevolution"... is there any (not considering versions)? There's no difference at the moment. The reason for picking "syncevolution-evolution" was that this was SyncEvolution with the Evolution backend included. There still is the possibility that other backends will have to be packaged, at which point a "syncevolution" package should only contain the platform independent core. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
