On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:25 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I wasn't (am no longer) proposing to move "camel/" out of e-d-s. I was
> proposing to put a configure.ac file in its directory. Moving Camel out
> of evolution-data-server/ is not the scope nor point of this thread.
For what purpose? Camel depends on libedataserver.
> > Calendar data isn't being stored by the addressbook server either. That
> > isn't a great argument.
>
> And I question ... do all applications that want to use calendaring (and
> only calendaring) have to depend on most of the Evolution components?
>
> Right now, if you translate that to Camel and E-mailing, it depends on
> which distribution you have. On most Redhat based ones: yes. On Debian
> based ones: no. Is there clarity? no. Is it making it more easy to
> develop a pure "E-mail" application and to document which dependencies
> you have (maybe even letting packagers share the same dependencies): no.
>
> The list of reasons (all valid ones, it's not because *you* mark them as
> rant that it also *is* rant) goes on and on and on.
So you've found a problem with the Red Hat packaging, in that it treats
all of EDS a single library. File a bug with Red Hat, and notice that
Debian, Maemo, and OpenEmbedded (at least) already have split EDS
packages.
In the scheme of things this is a very minor issue which effects very
few people. I'd prefer to see effort spent on fixing bugs and memory
leaks.
Ross
--
Ross Burton mail: ross burtonini com
jabber: ross burtonini com
www: http://www.burtonini.com./
PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part