GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 521720
Is checking evolution per version justified
Last modified: 2014-08-30 00:08:40 UTC
In evolution# each version(1.10.x etc.) is checked separetly. Hence each time I upgrade evolution I have to upgrade evolution# [I am not taking about rebuilding - I need to upgrade] despite the fact that is is unlikely that the API is broken. Since I use gentoo with test gnome and the bindigs are upgraded less often it is very inconvinient for me. Hence if evolution# check version of evolution please do it in such way: - If 1.x -> enable basic features - If 1.(x+2) -> enable additional features ... - If 1.(x+2n) -> eable additional features - If bigger threat as if it was 1.(x+2n) If no additional features are enabled just check for the version bigger or equal 1.x. Other information:
Created attachment 127969 [details] [review] A simple patch
(In reply to comment #1) > Created an attachment (id=127969) [edit] > A simple patch > Hmm.. Removing error message is not a good idea :). We should somehow get the API versions of the dependent libs and decide based on that. Thanks.
Created attachment 128092 [details] [review] The patch I meant Sorry - I make a typo - I meant to include everything newer then the last version in it. Ie. If last 'supported' version is 2.24 and user tries to build against 2.26 than it should be threated as 2.24.
(In reply to comment #3) > Created an attachment (id=128092) [edit] > The patch I meant > > Sorry - I make a typo - I meant to include everything newer then the last > version in it. Ie. If last 'supported' version is 2.24 and user tries to build > against 2.26 than it should be threated as 2.24. The issue is , if we allow this then 0.19.x tarball would be compatible with EDS 4.x and all the future versions of EDS which we don't want to . Because the API/ABI would change. We would need a better solution for this.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Created an attachment (id=128092) [edit] > > The patch I meant > > > > Sorry - I make a typo - I meant to include everything newer then the last > > version in it. Ie. If last 'supported' version is 2.24 and user tries to build > > against 2.26 than it should be threated as 2.24. > > The issue is , if we allow this then 0.19.x tarball would be compatible with > EDS 4.x and all the future versions of EDS which we don't want to . Because the > API/ABI would change. We would need a better solution for this. > If a API/ABI change in a manner that breakes the compatibility then, I'm nearly sure, it will no longer be marked as evolution-data-server-1.2! If will be called for example evolution-data-server-4.0. pkg-config have such mechanism built-in so there is no need to have it doubled in scripts (especially in manner thet is hard for GNOME beta users - or GNOME developers).
The -1.2 suffix is a meaningless artifact that we're stuck with. The API/ABI version is indicated by the shared object name. e.g. libecal-1.2.so.7.2.1 pkg-config does not deal with API/ABI versioning, only package versions. But we are mindful about avoiding API/ABI breaks and changing the shared object name when a break is unavoidable. Between that and the version check macros that libedataserver now supplies [1], there should be no need to individually test for current and future releases. [1] http://library.gnome.org/devel/libedataserver/stable/libedataserver-Version-Information.html
Created attachment 139192 [details] [review] 0001-Remove-unnecessaryrestrictions-on-e-d-s.patch Patch updated against master.
Patch works fine. Please note this bugs stops modern distros from including evolution-sharp as a package.
evolution-sharp has not seen any code changes since May 2009: https://git.gnome.org/browse/archive/evolution-sharp/log/ This project is not under active development anymore and got recently archived in GNOME Git. It is currently unlikely that there will be any further active development. Closing this report as WONTFIX as part of Bugzilla Housekeeping to reflect reality. Please feel free to reopen this bug report in the future if anyone takes the responsibility for active development again.