Re: advice for syncevolution in squeeze
On Sa, 2010-10-23 at 17:08 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 14:33 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> > Around the
> > time of the freeze, I asked on the upstream list for any serious issues
> > with the debian packages, and not receiving any reports, decided to
> > stick with the version in squeeze. However, upstream has since brought
> > to my attention
> > (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=582376#31) that
> > several fairly severe upstream have been fixed in more recent versions.
> > I have looked at the first 3 or 4, and they do involve data loss.
> From a quick look through the list, most of them sound worth looking at
> and that they should be easily extractable as small targetted fixes.
> Some of the GUI changes - for instance, "improved setup of devices",
> "styling fix" - don't immediately sound like they'd be appropriate right
These are the ones which are relevant to make direct synchronization
with phones useful. The same probably applies to some of the mentioned
bug fixes: they are likely to depend on features introduced after beta 2
and thus I doubt that backporting them will be feasible.
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.
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.
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.