My god, nothing but endless problems with Evolution since updating to
Gnome 3.24. Downloaded libsoup last night to avoid the constant
annoyance of the issue with EWS Contacts. Then today, EWS calendar
stopped working.
Unable to connect to “Calendar”: Backend factory for source “1492881450
.6684.6
On Fri, 05 May 2017 13:05:28 -0400
Benjamin Selzer wrote:
> My god, nothing but endless problems with Evolution since updating to
> Gnome 3.24. Downloaded libsoup last night to avoid the constant
> annoyance of the issue with EWS Contacts. Then today, EWS calendar
> stopped working.
>
> Unable
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 13:05 -0400, Benjamin Selzer wrote:
> My god, nothing but endless problems with Evolution since updating to
> Gnome 3.24.
Hi,
that's not fair. It was a problem in libsoup and that change had been
reverted in the upstream. The only problem was that it got to stable
rel
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 07:09 -0400, Benjamin Selzer wrote:
> Regarding the problem with libsoup, I've had to HoldPkg = libsoup,
> because allowing it to upgrade still goes to the broken 2.58.01. I
> thought the change was reverted upstream?
Hi,
yes, I said so, the offending commit had been
Regarding the problem with libsoup, I've had to HoldPkg = libsoup, because
allowing it to upgrade still goes to the broken 2.58.01. I thought the
change was reverted upstream? Why does my system still want to download the
broken package? I use Arch, by the way.
Thanks.
On May 9, 2017 6:35 AM, "Mi
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 07:09 -0400, Benjamin Selzer wrote:
> Regarding the problem with libsoup, I've had to HoldPkg = libsoup, because
> allowing it to upgrade still goes to the broken 2.58.01. I thought the
> change was reverted upstream? Why does my system still want to download the
> broken pack
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 06:04 -0400, Benjamin Selzer wrote:
> No idea? Really? Sure.
Instead of snark, why don't you just explain it, or more to the point,
explain why users of Evolution might be expected to know it as it
appears to part of some package manager that most of us know nothing
about?
p
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 06:42 -0400, Benjamin Selzer wrote:
> Right, I understand, you couldn't possibly know what HoldPkg might
> mean. It' so mysterious.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the idea of community support. I think
this ludicrous exchange is over.
poc
It would be nice if this were community support. However, unfortunately,
it's a forum for a small circle of individual (you included) to deflect any
responsibility on the part of Evolution for the myriad of problems it has
and make those requesting help feel stupid for asking. Clearly it is you
who
No idea? Really? Sure.
On May 10, 2017 6:02 AM, "Patrick O'Callaghan" wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 07:09 -0400, Benjamin Selzer wrote:
> > Regarding the problem with libsoup, I've had to HoldPkg = libsoup,
> because
> > allowing it to upgrade still goes to the broken 2.58.01. I thought the
> >
Right, I understand, you couldn't possibly know what HoldPkg might
mean. It' so mysterious.
Nevertheless, my libsoup finally updated to 2.58.1, so another
Evolution problem has been patched.
-Original Message-
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 11:37:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [Evolution] Fail
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 07:30 -0400, Benjamin Selzer wrote:
> It would be nice if this were community support. However,
> unfortunately, it's a forum for a small circle of individual (you
> included) to deflect any responsibility on the part of Evolution for
> the myriad of problems it has and make t
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 14:13 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 07:30 -0400, Benjamin Selzer wrote:
> > It would be nice if this were community support. However,
> > unfortunately, it's a forum for a small circle of individual (you
> > included) to deflect any responsibility on the
> Nevertheless, my libsoup finally updated to 2.58.1, so another
> Evolution problem has been patched.
I think you meant to say "Arch Linux has corrected their packaging
error" since I don't think any code in either Evolution or libsoup was
"patched".
P.
_
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 13:18 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> I think you meant to say "Arch Linux has corrected their packaging
> error" since I don't think any code in either Evolution or libsoup
> was "patched".
Hi,
libsoup had been patched. The 2.58.1 has reverted offending commit
which "brok
On Wed, 10 May 2017 15:15:24 +0200
Milan Crha wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 13:18 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > I think you meant to say "Arch Linux has corrected their packaging
> > error" since I don't think any code in either Evolution or libsoup
> > was "patched".
>
> Hi,
> libsoup h
> The only problem still, is the number of unread behind the folder
> names not getting updated...
>
Just to check (since I think it's a language problem) do you mean the
unread count in parentheses next to the folder name?
If you do, then I know there were issues with such things a long long
ti
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 15:44 +0200, Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
> The only problem still, is the number of unread behind the folder
> names not getting updated...
Hi.
that one I'm still not able to reproduce and I'm dependent on folks
whom are able to reproduce to give me some hints. That had b
On Thu, 11 May 2017 16:56:30 +0200
Milan Crha wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 15:44 +0200, Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
> > The only problem still, is the number of unread behind the folder
> > names not getting updated...
>
> Hi.
> that one I'm still not able to reproduce and I'm dependent on
19 matches
Mail list logo