On Sat, 2014-01-18 at 09:40 +0000, Graham Cobb wrote: Which version of SyncEvolution are you trying to compile? Usually I try to remember to bump the libsynthesis version and add a configure check for that in SyncEvolution; I must have forgotten that in the version you are compiling. Usually the one that was bundled with the release. When compiling from source, use the libsynthesis from http://cgit.freedesktop.org/SyncEvolution/libsynthesis -- 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.

On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 16:56 +0000, Graham Cobb wrote: I disagree here slightly. I think pkg-config is meant to find installed, usable versions of the libraries. When installing a lib into a non-standard local (non-standard = not search by default) then whoever installs it there needs to ensure that it works. This means setting PKG_CONFIG_PATH and, if the .pc file doesn't contain an rpath setting for the lib, also LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Having to second-guess how the lib was installed IMHO makes using it too complex and shouldn't be in the user of the lib. If libsynthesis was configured with "--disable-dynamic --enable-static", SyncEvolution will use the static library. However, because it gets linked into a dynamic library, one also has to use "-DPIC -fpic" as CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS when configuring libsynthesis. The building of the README is already more tolerant if doing cross-compilation. In that case, the compiled executable might not work on the build machine. It is tried to run it, but when it fails, a fallback text about sync and source properties gets inserted into the README. I did not want that tolerant behavior as default because then it would be very easy to not notice the incomplete doc when building a release and something broke (like not having LD_LIBRARY_PATH set). I'm fine with adding a configure option. Should the more tolerant behavior be the default or the stricter, current approach? -- 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.

On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 11:02 +0100, Tino Mettler wrote: FYI, I am preparing the 1.3.99.7 release right now. I might finish that today. libsynthesis is the same as in 1.3.99.6. -- 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.