On Fr, 2012-01-06 at 18:28 +0100, [email protected] wrote: > I do not seem to be able to turn off the exhaustive dumps. I did: > > /home/user $ syncevolution --configure printChanges=false client-for-laptop > /home/user $ syncevolution --configure dumpData=false client-for-laptop > > which caused > > printChanges = 0 > dumpData = 0 > > to appear in > /home/user/.config/syncevolution/default/peers/client-for-laptop/config.ini.
Looks right. > However, the dumps still appear. I need to check this. I'm in the middle of an extensive code rewrite, so it might take until Monday or Tuesday. > Another question: Instead of sync'ing over USB with syncevo-http-server > on the laptop, can I sync over Bluetooth? I have not found an obvious > way to do this: > > - Trying to configure syncevolution as an OBEX server results in > "[ERROR] unsupported transport type is specified in the > configuration". SyncEvolution itself can only be an OBEX client/SyncML server (yes, the roles are reversed depending on the level in the stack). That's typically the laptop/desktop side, which initiates a connection to a mobile device (thus acts as OBEX client). This is what obex+bt in the syncURL configures. It uses libopenobex, no need for obexd. > - I found some vague pointers towards hooking up syncevolution with > obexd (the one commonly packaged as obexd-server, I gather) but it > conflicts with bluedevil (I use KDE) and other packages. obexd needs to run on the N9. It must be invoked with a --syncevolution option (or something like it, I don't remember the details). Then it'll start syncevo-dbus-server via D-Bus to do actual syncs whenever someone connects to obexd and asks for a SyncML session. The syncevo-http-server uses the same D-Bus interface, so the actual SyncEvolution code is well-tested, just not in combination with obexd. It was meant to go into handheld devices, but as it happened, SyncEvolution never actually was used for such devices. Nokia preferred to stay with their own solution. > And a final, unrelated question: running KDE, it would be more natural > for me to use KOrganizer instead of Evolution. The logs say "Loading > backend library syncakonadi.so." I have not found conclusive > information about this backend. Is this a production-ready backend that > would allow me to sync with KOrganizer? I wouldn't call it production ready, although it has been around for a while. The main problem is that I never got around to put it into syncevolution.org binaries and the nightly testing. Partly this is general lack of time, partly fear that if I enable it, I'll end up with bugs that I cannot deal with unless some KDE developers are ready to help. It's still on the agenda for SyncEvolution 1.3. -- 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
