Re: [Evolution-hackers] cvs -r binary-branch libtool cuts my Evobuild time from 158 minutes to 40 minutes.

2002-04-29 Thread iain
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 01:47, Ettore Perazzoli wrote: > > Well actually I use 1.3.something, its faster than 1.4, 1.4 was > > simply so slow i couldn't get any development done at all. > > If you use 1.3, the pilot conduits won't work. That's why I have been > making the tarballs using 1.4..

[Evolution-hackers] ldap backend(s)

2002-04-29 Thread Costin Cozan
hi, did anyone of you had the idea to write a ldap backend for anything else than addressbook? I just keep thinking of a such backend for calendar, having the data in the ldap database, and thus creating premises of a real groupware. I imagine that i am able to save my free busy into ldap and

Re: [Evolution-hackers] ldap backend(s)

2002-04-29 Thread Dan Winship
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 11:46, Costin Cozan wrote: > hi, > > did anyone of you had the idea to write a ldap backend for anything else > than addressbook? > > I just keep thinking of a such backend for calendar, having the data in > the ldap database, and thus creating premises of a real groupwar

Re: [Evolution-hackers] ldap backend(s)

2002-04-29 Thread Costin Cozan
Dan Winship wrote: >On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 11:46, Costin Cozan wrote: > >>hi, >> >>did anyone of you had the idea to write a ldap backend for anything else >>than addressbook? >> >>I just keep thinking of a such backend for calendar, having the data in >>the ldap database, and thus creating prem

Re: [Evolution-hackers] poll: patch to optionally disable HTML mail?

2002-04-29 Thread Mike Furr
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 18:43, Colin Walters wrote: > I have written a patch which implements this > (http://people.debian.org/~walters/debian/render-html.patch). Some of > the Evolution developers aren't convinced that many people would use > it. So, we decided to have a poll. If you would like

[Evolution-hackers] poll: patch to optionally disable HTML mail?

2002-04-29 Thread Colin Walters
Hello, Have you ever been annoyed by HTML email? Do you want to have the option not to see 66 pt. bold red headers that someone decided to write? Is the only HTML email you get spam, and you'd like to have the option to turn it into an attachment? Do you know anyone else who would like this op

[Evolution-hackers] Re: [Evolution] poll: patch to optionally disable HTML mail?

2002-04-29 Thread Colin Walters
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 19:23, Xavier Bestel wrote: > Err .. I NEED to see html mails (no, not the text alternative, which BTW > is not always present). [ I obviously should have emphasized this more...] The patch will change nothing unless you actually uncheck one of the two new options in Mail

[Evolution-hackers] poll: patch to optionally disable HTML mail.

2002-04-29 Thread rob
I vote in support of the option to save time while reading email. rob ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

Re: [Evolution-hackers] poll: patch to optionally disable HTML mail?

2002-04-29 Thread Soeren Sonnenburg
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 00:43, Colin Walters wrote: > I have written a patch which implements this > (http://people.debian.org/~walters/debian/render-html.patch). Some of > the Evolution developers aren't convinced that many people would use > it. So, we decided to have a poll. If you would like

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Offline mode improvements

2002-04-29 Thread Not Zed
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 10:10, Ettore Perazzoli wrote: > > > Hm, the ::Activity interface assumes that the actions are controlled by > > > the component. In this case, instead, we want the shell to initiate the > > > operation and the component to just report how the operation is > > > progressing.

[Evolution-hackers] Re: [Evolution] poll: patch to optionally disable HTML mail?

2002-04-29 Thread Larry Ewing
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 19:30, John Weber wrote: > Hi, > > I like this. I get HTML mail that has attached GIFs that obscure the > text I need to see (HTML rendering problem?). If I open these mails in > pine, I can see the text (which has the real information in the first > place) fine. I would lik