On Do, 2011-02-10 at 09:44 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Patrick Ohly
> On Mi, 2011-02-09 at 22:28 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> Two issues. First one is easy, is there a source file? :-)
> Yes, but I have been hiding it so that people don't start packaging
> it ;-)
> Seriously, I'd rather have some folks here on this list test that
> version before it gets rolled out to some unsuspecting distro users. The
> next version should be suitable for an unstable distro again.
I'm not planning on pushing it to an "unsuspecting distro user" I push
it through my build system and test that it will compile on Fedora
rawhide using gcc 4.6 and all the fun things its introducing to give
"upstream" details of any issues so that they may review them within a
That's of course worthwhile - thanks for testing that.
> Why is the usage of the Bluez gdbus a problem? I thought we had
> the name clash by renaming the symbols in the SyncEvolution source code.
Why is the submission of patches upstream a problem?
I submitted them and Marcel has not responded, that's all. My impression
is that the separate Bluez gdbus is dead and will never see a separate,
So in Fedora there really is a separate library and gupnp uses it?
As for chaanges of namespaces as far as I can tell its been shoved
into a sub directory of syncevolution. The readme in the source tells
me as much when it documents the script to split out the patches. With
it in a sub directory the standard build of syncevolution doesn't find
it because its not in the ld path, if you add it to the path it
conflicts with the other library if installed.
I'm not seeing the issue with it not being found during the build. What
is your configure line?
Regarding the library name clash: I agree, the library name should be
different and it should get installed into /usr/lib/syncevolution. I'll
> If someone has a patch which allows to switch between the Bluez
> and glib gdbus, then I'd be happy to include it. I just don't have time
> to do that myself.
Personally I'd prefer if the patches were upstream and there was just
one of them and we didn't have to worry about hacks to "switch".
Yes, of course. Me too, but that's outside of my control. I was thinking
of the glib gdbus here.
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.