Re: [SyncEvolution] SyncEvolution on Debian/Ubuntu (was: Re: status 2010-02-09)
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 <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com>
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.