On Di, 2011-07-26 at 15:13 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 15:02 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > > The problem with not registering the backends would have shown up > > > > there, > > > > if the tests had been run on a platform exhibiting the problem. So > > a > > > > simpler unit test would have been nice, but not essential. > > > > > > So where is this problem showing up now? > > > > The problem is not in the master branch and thus doesn't show up in > > the > > nightly testing. > > Chris, I was trying this with your dbus-server-reorganization branch. > Maybe you could apply my patch locally and investigate. I can't get my > test to fail ever.
The root cause for the failure in that branch is understood, I just need the time to fix it. It only triggers when using static linking. See From: Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> To: Chris Kühl <[email protected]> Cc: SyncEvolution <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [SyncEvolution] dbus-server-reorganization progress Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:31:55 +0200 ... What's probably happening is this: * the register classes are now all in a .a lib * nothing depends on these object files when linking the executables * they don't get into the executables ... I'll check whether there is an easy fix. If not, then we'll have to go back to compiling the sources files multiple times. -- 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
