Re: [Evolution-hackers] Win32 portability issues

[JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>]

On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 05:46 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 18:19 +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > So far the effort to port Evolution to Windows has concentrated on the
> > more "remote" and basic dependencies, like ORBit2, libbonobo,
> > libgnome, gnome-vfs, gal, libsoup etc. So far my changes have met with
> > no resistance, even if I sometimes have broken something by
> > accident/braino, like in gnome-vfs some weeks ago.
> > 
> > But now I am getting closer to Evolution itself. More specifically,
> > evolution-data-server. I fear that getting required portability
> > changes accepted into e-d-s will not be possible without
> > controversy...
> > 
> > Looking at e-d-s has raised some questions:
> > 
> > - libdb. Is there any specific reason why libdb (4.1.25) source is
> > included as such in e-d-s? Would using a separately installed libdb be
> > OK? (If necessary, just on Win32.)
> > 
> the reason for having it included in e-d-s is because of the file format
> changes between libdb versions. I guess it's going to happen the same in
> Win32, as soon as the system's libdb is updated and the file format
> changes.
> 
> Another option would be to use something different than libdb, but not
> sure what.

There is the flat file contacts backend now and we can do away with the
get_changes use of libdb, but we still need it to upgrade from older
versions of Evolution, but perhaps we could just ignore this problem on
Windows because we don't have to upgrade there :-).

-JP
-- 
JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>
Novell, Inc.