2:04 a.m.
Hello!
So far, syncevolution.org binaries were compiled on Ubuntu Lucid 10.04
LTS, which made the binaries compatible with pretty much all distros
since then, including Debian Stable. Since then, another Ubuntu LTS
(Precise Pangolin, 12.04) was released and Debian Wheezy became Debian
Stable this weekend.
Does anyone still need SyncEvolution binaries for Ubuntu Lucid 10.04 and
Debian Squeeze?
I'd like to switch to Ubuntu Precise as new baseline distro because then
binaries can use features from glib 3.32.0, more precisely, the revised
multithreading API. Then SyncEvolution can prevent premature client
timeouts when acting as SyncML HTTP server by running long-running local
storage initialization in a background thread.
--
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.
7:20 a.m.
On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 11:04 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
Hello!
So far, syncevolution.org binaries were compiled on Ubuntu Lucid 10.04
LTS, which made the binaries compatible with pretty much all distros
since then, including Debian Stable. Since then, another Ubuntu LTS
(Precise Pangolin, 12.04) was released and Debian Wheezy became Debian
Stable this weekend.
Does anyone still need SyncEvolution binaries for Ubuntu Lucid 10.04 and
Debian Squeeze?
I'd like to switch to Ubuntu Precise as new baseline distro because then
binaries can use features from glib 3.32.0, more precisely, the revised
multithreading API. Then SyncEvolution can prevent premature client
timeouts when acting as SyncML HTTP server by running long-running local
storage initialization in a background thread.
I've not received any feedback on this; if no-one objects, I'll go ahead
and bump the requirement of SyncEvolution to glib >= 3.32.
At the same time I will drop support for libdbus as alternative for glib
gio D-Bus. This will make the code simpler and allow me to use more
secure D-Bus IPC (use pipes instead of the less reliable and secure
listening socket that is used at the moment).
Ove, I suspect that this will prevent building SyncEvolution 1.4 for
older Maemo. Do you know which devices have which glib version? Would
you and/or users care?
--
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.
7:47 a.m.
Den 27. jan. 2014 16:20, skrev Patrick Ohly:
Ove, I suspect that this will prevent building SyncEvolution 1.4 for
older Maemo. Do you know which devices have which glib version? Would
you and/or users care?
Let's see. The build environments I'm using have these installed:
Harmattan: glib 2.28.4
Fremantle: glib 2.20.3
I think many people are still using SyncEvolution on these devices, so
yes, I think I would care a bit. Now, I don't want to stop you from
using shiny new GLib features, but it would certainly be nice if there
were at least some #ifs to make basic stuff continue to work on older
GLib versions.
7:31 a.m.
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 16:47 +0100, Ove Kåven wrote:
Den 27. jan. 2014 16:20, skrev Patrick Ohly:
> Ove, I suspect that this will prevent building SyncEvolution 1.4 for
> older Maemo. Do you know which devices have which glib version? Would
> you and/or users care?
Let's see. The build environments I'm using have these installed:
Harmattan: glib 2.28.4
Fremantle: glib 2.20.3
I think many people are still using SyncEvolution on these devices, so
yes, I think I would care a bit. Now, I don't want to stop you from
using shiny new GLib features, but it would certainly be nice if there
were at least some #ifs to make basic stuff continue to work on older
GLib versions.
Okay, I guess I have to keep the libdbus support alive a bit longer.
I'll rework my patch before merging into master.
--
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.
2462
days inactive
2730
days old
syncevolution@synevolution.org
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Ove Kåven -
Patrick Ohly