Re: advice for syncevolution in squeeze
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 22:39 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:46:58 +0200, Patrick Ohly <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > If 1.0 + bug fixes is not acceptable for Debian Squeeze, then I suggest
> > that direct synchronization with phones gets disabled entirely in the
> > Debian Squeeze build by turning off Bluetooth support. Users who want
> > that need to find a backport of SyncEvolution.
> This is of course easy to do. And I don't mind doing the backport.
Was this feature not present in beta 2, or just not useful then?
> > FWIW, I still think that 1.0 + bug fixes is the better choice for
> > Squeeze. It has been in use for a while now and arguably is better than
> > beta 2, with no known regressions whatsoever.
> I'm also willing to do this if the release team approves it.
I'm not sure I'm going to like the answer, given the commit count you
mention below, but how large is the diff between what's currently in
squeeze and the proposed 1.0 packages?
> One thing I
> (belatedly) realized is that we need to think about not only the changes
> introduced by a new upstream version of syncevolution (some 360 commits
> between 1.0beta2 and 1.0, about 80 of these are translations) but also
> in libsynthesis (another 77 commits).
Would that be 18.104.22.168+ds4-1, which is currently in experimental? (The
changelog suggests that +ds2-1 might be a more sensible comparison
point, but that doesn't appear to have ever been in the archive, so
isn't as easy to diff against).