Re: [Evolution] Evolution and Google's less secure app problem

[Milan Crha <mcrha redhat com>]

On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 13:40 -0500, Japhering wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, is the lack of that package something the
> build should have detected ?

        Hi,
that's a question for flatpak-builder, or better for your distribution,
to update the package dependencies. The flatpak-builder itself detected
missing first binary, it told you so, but the second one had been
mandatory and it detected it's missing the hard way. Thus I believe it
should be fixed on the packaging level.

On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 14:44 -0500, Japhering wrote:
> Thoughts ?

Nothing more than what's here:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/evolution-list/2018-June/msg00079.html

Eventually, I can provide one more (ugh, the third version) build
script of the Flatpak Evolution, which will use system evolution-data-
server, just like GNOME Calendar and others, thus it'll not run in an
isolated sandbox. That would be only for the stable version, if at all;
or I can change the stable version to just do it this way, but there
will be a huge disadvantage, because when you'll need certain fix on
the evolution-data-server side, like when some book/calendar backend
will require a change to behave properly, then even when you use up-to-
date evolution, then the backend itself will be outdated, thus you'll
not have the fix and it'll still misbehave. This makes false
impression, from my point of view, thus I chose to have Flatpak version
also use the up-to-date evolution-data-server, which has the other
disadvantages (see the first section of the Wiki page for Evolution in
Flatpak). It's so isolated that you cannot access local system files,
among other things. There are some more technical details around this,
but I do not want to tire people here.

        Bye,
        Milan