On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 10:00 +0300, Iovene, Salvatore wrote: > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote: > > On this occasion, can you review my "syncevolution-compilation" branch? > > On that branch I make it possible again to compile the backend as part > > of the SyncEvolution "configure + make" cycle. > > I had a look. I resent the ENABLE_ACTIVESYNC name :) Can we name it > ENABLE_SYNCEVOLUTION_ACTIVESYNC_BACKEND? I know it's very long, but it > would satisfy both the case when we're compiling from activesyncd and > from syncevolution.
This won't work without further changes to make it compile in SyncEvolution. Long-term the code is meant to live in SyncEvolution. Can we please make it so that it works nicely there and consider compilation in activesyncd a temporary hack, and thus accept the not so nice name there? > Other than that, you forgot to change it in activesyncd/Makefile.am. > Which makes me wonder: have you actually tried if it compiles from > within activesyncd? No. Sorry, I should have mentioned that explicitly. > Are you sure you can define EASSYNC_CFLAGS like that? Nope, it has to be EASSYNC_CFLAGS="...." -- 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
