Bug#692984: upstream binary / DAViCal / CardDAV problems on wheezy
Hello Daniel,
I imported the latest upstream version 24 of the sogo-connector and
rebuild the package. The current output of git-buildpackage will be
found on the links I posted earlier.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 05:36:18PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I found the solution to my problem using the connector
>
> I can confirm that both the TB10 and TB17 connectors from upstream work
> with the respective icedove versions in wheezy against a DAViCal server
> on wheezy.
>
> The reason it didn't work for me in the beginning is because the default
> config in DAViCal is for a calendar-only resource.
>
> Somehow, Evolution was able to use the calendar-only resource to store
> vCards: that seems like a bug in both DAViCal and Evolution, they
> shouldn't allow that. However, that left me thinking there was
> something wrong with the SOGo Connector because it couldn't see the
> contacts the Evolution could create and retrieve.
>
> When I started looking around in the DAViCal settings, I realised I had
> to create another resource for my address book and DAViCal creates a
> different URL for that. I put that new address book URL in the SOGo
> Connector and it is working.
I plan to write a wiki page if the package is once available thrue the
repositorys. Your summary above would be good to place then there.
> It would be useful if the connector could give users a helpful error if
> they misconfigure it like that, I had no useful error to help me and I
> was just guessing what was wrong.
Sadly true, maybe I can talk about that with Jeroen in the near future.
> One minor problem left, Icedove address book only allows up to 2 email
> addresses per contact but Evolution and Android allow more than 2. It
> is not clear to me whether changing those contacts in Icedove's address
> book will result in the loss of the extra email addresses when they sync.
I don't believe Mozilla will work on such "minor" issues. We can be
happy if Mozilla is making some housekeeping inside the code and
implements some more core requirements like the TLS 1.2 implementation
in the near past.
We will see. :)
Regards
Carsten
Reply to: