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
> now.
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.
Reply to: