Re: [Evolution-hackers] Bug #232

[Larry Ewing <lewing ximian com>]

On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 13:03, JP Rosevear wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 13:44, Larry Ewing wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 01:43, JP Rosevear wrote: 
> > > On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 04:40, James Ogley wrote:
> > > > Many many centuries ago, there was a lot of discussion, and work towards
> > > > fixing bug #232 - reading TNEF attachments.  The solution that was
> > > > arrived at was using gtnef (kudos Larry)
> > > > 
> > > > However, gtnef has never been ported to GNOME2, and I discovered this
> > > > morning that bug #232 appears to still exist in 1.4.5.  There have been
> > > > a couple of calls on bugzilla, attached to the bug report for the bug to
> > > > be reopened, but nothing's been done.
> > > > 
> > > > I'll be adding the description of how I rediscovered the lost bug #232
> > > > to bugzilla, but I wanted to raise it here.  Are there plans to port
> > > > gtnef to GNOME2, and if not is there a new solution to bug #232?
> > > 
> > > Larry, any thoughts on the time involved for this?
> > 
> > A simple port probably wouldn't take very much time, but the problem is
> > the way gtnef works is far less than ideal.  Because of licensing issues
> > (the tnef code base it was derived from is GPL'd) it cannot be linked
> > into the mailer so it has to be an exe component.  Since it has to be a
> > component it has to duplicate a large amount of the mail display code to
> > make an interface that looks similar to the normal attachment
> > interface.  So it is both extremely slow to activate and annoying to
> > maintain.
> 
> The mailer is GPL'ed though, isn't it?
> 

But we need to be able to link the connector bits so we need an
exception still don't we?

--Larry