Re: evolution-mapi - anybody got it working?
On 7/9/10, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> On 07/09/2010 08:40 AM, Andrew Perrin wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/09/2010 05:45 AM, Andrew Perrin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure you're up-to-date? Or maybe actually running Squeeze?
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask because in Sid, evolution-mapi Depends: evolution (>= 2.28.3).
>>>>
>>>> Well, not completely sure, but here's what I've got:
>>>>
>>>> sandbox:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
>>>> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> sandbox:~# apt-cache show evolution-mapi
>>>> Package: evolution-mapi
>>> [snip]
>>>> Version: 0.28.3-2
>>>> Depends: evolution (>= 2.28.3), libart-2.0-2 (>= 2.3.18), libatk1.0-0
>>>
>>>
>>> So where did you see "depends on evolution version < 2.29"?
>>>
>>> Or did that "disappear" after you did an "apt-get update"?
>>
>> The last line of the Depends:
>>
>> evolution (<< 2.29.0)
>>
>
> Hmm, yes. I guess there was an Evo 2.28.4.
I mailed developers some time back:
-----
To: pkg-evolution-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
...
I just noticed that under unstable, evolution-mapi version is
0.28.3-2, but it depends on evolution < 2.29.0, while current
evolution in unstable is 2.30.2-1.
It might be left in such state in purpose, or it might be the package
requires refresh for current evolution package (it sounds more like
it)...
I'm not sure if this is something you'd like to have a bug against, or
if it's something you're aware of already, and you don't need to be
bugged because of it...
...
-----
And I got the answer:
-----
From: Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org>
Cc: pkg-evolution-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
...
At least, that's something we would need people for. Like exchange, I
have no setup, no knowledge nor any interest in it. So if you're
interested in it, you might have to give some time.
...
-----
So, I think more time is needed, and help can be offered to the
developers... :-)
--
Javier.
Reply to: