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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org