Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On 11/14/22 12:08, Paul Smith wrote: On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 09:19 -0600, Anonymous Japhering via evolution- list wrote: The 3.46.x flatpak series has been a total disaster for me. Mysterious segfaults after 15 or so actions. This is (probably) due to the bug in libsoup, which has been fixed but

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 20:09 +0100, Ralf Mardorf via evolution-list wrote: > it was pointed out several times that Evolution downgrades are > sometimes a problem regarding the user data/settings. Downgrades of > any software can suffer from this issues. Of course. I didn't mean to suggest that

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 13:08 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > The nice thing about flatpak is it's quite simple to install an older > version (e.g., Evolution 3.44) if that's helpful to you. Hi, it was pointed out several times that Evolution downgrades are sometimes a problem regarding the user

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 09:19 -0600, Anonymous Japhering via evolution- list wrote: > The 3.46.x flatpak series has been a total disaster for me. > Mysterious segfaults after 15 or so actions. This is (probably) due to the bug in libsoup, which has been fixed but that fix has not made it to the

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On 11/8/22 00:21, Paul Smith wrote: On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 16:17 -0600, Tim McConnell via evolution-list wrote: On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 16:34 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: I'm not sure I understand this comment.  The whole point of flatpak (and snap) is that it's not _supposed_ to need to worry about

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 16:57 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > I simply urge people to not take these "it's horrible" statements, > without any reference to actual problems that anyone has ever had in > real life and very little understanding of what exactly a flatpak or > snap is, how they are built, or

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

It's clear that no one has any actual pros/cons that they want to discuss in a serious way. So, this is my last message on this topic. I simply urge people to not take these "it's horrible" statements, without any reference to actual problems that anyone has ever had in real life and very little

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:49 -0600, Greg Oliver via evolution-list wrote: > Do you really think Canonical understands linux?  They have zero > developers in the kernel development process, plus Debian only has (2) > that I know of..  So, please do not use distros as live bait - it is >

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:58 AM Paul Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 09:33 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > > I know this is getting way of topic, but this is primarily why I shy > > away from Flatpak. You download a blob of "stuff" and you have no > > real idea what is in that - it could be some

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 17:07 +0100, Milan Crha via evolution-list wrote: > the only tricky part is to run it in the flatpak sandbox. It's easy > once you know how to do it: > >   $ flatpak run --command=sh org.gnome.Evolution Yes, I am familiar with this since I used it to help you debug the

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 10:58 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > I do have many problems with the UI changes introduced in Evo 3.46: > putting buttons for important things on the title bar makes NO sense. > But, that's not an issue with the flatpak. Hi, you can also use: gsettings set

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 09:33 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > I know this is getting way of topic, but this is primarily why I shy > away from Flatpak. You download a blob of "stuff" and you have no > real idea what is in that - it could be some ancient bug-ridden > library that the dev has decided to

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 10:33 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote: > You download a blob of "stuff" and you have no real > idea what is in that Hi, some people may even not care of it, they just want to have things done. ;) For what it's worth: $ flatpak run --command=sh org.gnome.Evolution

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

> > They basically provide a fully self-contained package containing a tool > (like Evolution) and ALL of its dependencies, as a single bundle. > These dependencies are not installed separately on your system: they > are not visible to any other program "outside" the flatpak. And the >

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 16:17 -0600, Tim McConnell via evolution-list wrote: > On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 16:34 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand this comment.  The whole point of flatpak > > (and snap) is that it's not _supposed_ to need to worry about the > > dependencies of the

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 18:35 -0600, Tim McConnell via evolution-list wrote: > On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 08:16 +0800, Mike Lieberman wrote: > > No, Tim, I didn't miss it. I tested bookworm on a testbench machine > > and > > it crashed that machine. OK, it is possible that there was a > > problem > >

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 08:16 +0800, Mike Lieberman wrote: > No, Tim, I didn't miss it. I tested bookworm on a testbench machine > and > it crashed that machine. OK, it is possible that there was a problem > with that other machine, but I couldn't risk it. Interesting, I'm running Bookworm and the

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 15:15 -0600, Tim McConnell via evolution-list wrote: > On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 20:01 +0800, Mike Lieberman wrote: > > The new flathub install software center is not liked by Debian. And > > the > > code Debian is installing is a problem. > > Well you must of missed my email I

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 16:34 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > I'm not sure I understand this comment.  The whole point of flatpak > (and snap) is that it's not _supposed_ to need to worry about the > dependencies of the distribution.  That's why you'd use it. > Which is why they are bad ideas to use.

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 15:15 -0600, Tim McConnell wrote: > Your problem with using the flathub version is because the Flatpack > doesn't honor the dependencies of the distribution. I'm not sure I understand this comment. The whole point of flatpak (and snap) is that it's not _supposed_ to need to

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 20:01 +0800, Mike Lieberman wrote: > The new flathub install software center is not liked by Debian. And > the > code Debian is installing is a problem. Well you must of missed my email I sent to this list as a reply to you asking if you would be willing to upgrade to

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Sun, 2022-11-06 at 07:07 +0100, Mike wrote: > Nov  6 12:36:39 blackbox evolution[11523]: Failed to add service > 'News and Blogs' (rss): No provider available for protocol “rss” Hi, I guess, and only guess, you managed to mix different versions of evolution, even you claimed earlier

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Sun, 2022-11-06 at 06:07 +, Mike wrote: > I purged evolution from the PC, deleted the .config/evolution > folders, deleted the trash, rebooted, reinstalled at 12:36 and ran it > at 12:37. I did not import the backup file, so that isn't the > problem. > > None of these errors are in the VM

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Sun, 2022-11-06 at 06:07 +, Mike wrote: > I purged evolution from the PC, deleted the .config/evolution > folders, deleted the trash, rebooted, reinstalled at 12:36 and ran it > at 12:37. I did not import the backup file, so that isn't the > problem. > None of these errors are in the VM

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

I purged evolution from the PC, deleted the .config/evolution folders, deleted the trash, rebooted, reinstalled at 12:36 and ran it at 12:37. I did not import the backup file, so that isn't the problem. None of these errors are in the VM install though the VM install happened only five days

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

> > On the new platform, with the data imported (and all the data is > there) only a day after I imported it, it no longer displayed any new > mail. > > It says there is new mail via a notification popup, but there is > nothing in the inbox or anywhere else. How do you retrieve the mail into

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

Dnia 5.11.2022 o godz. 02:34:55 Steve Litt pisze: > > I have 20 years and probably more email messages than you spoke of. I > don't think any email client on earth is built to hold that volume of > email. I have probably a more than 20 years mail archive. Mutt (running directly on the server

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Sat, 2022-11-05 at 02:12 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > > Not that it really matters now, but top-posting & HTML mail is > frowned > on here ... > > And your quoting levels are screwed up ... > > And you really should trim posts to just relevant stuff.  You aren't > inhabiting an Outlook only

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

Not that it really matters now, but top-posting & HTML mail is frowned on here ... And your quoting levels are screwed up ... And you really should trim posts to just relevant stuff. You aren't inhabiting an Outlook only world these days ... On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 23:46 +, Mike wrote: > >

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 13:23 +, Mike wrote: > This is my first post here and it is a long one. > > I did look at the index of previous posts but there is no way to > search through all of them, so I truly do apologize in advance...  Go to https://mail.gnome.org/archives/evolution-list/

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

I see the All messages and it is the selected option. So that is not the issue. ══ Ellis Michael "Mike" Lieberman | Blog Purok 13, Morales Subd. Brgy Mabuhay, General Santos City, 9500 Philippines See MAP

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Sat, 2022-11-05 at 08:07 +, Mike wrote: > The VM is on the same hardware as the new desktop. Ok, we can tolerate top posting, HTML and untrimmed posts, even while you were asked to at least not top post and to trim quotes. At least I can't tolerate that you copied the content of an email

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

Mike said on Sat, 05 Nov 2022 07:11:27 + >Steve is it 27 years and my mail server (mail.netwright.net) sits a >meter from my left leg. [snip] >That server by my left leg is doing quite a bit, BIND, apache2 web, >Intermapper network monitoring as well as the mail server software. By mail

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 13:23 +, Mike wrote: > I exported the data set from the VM and imported it into the physical > Debian platform the VM was now running on. The gz package was 3.2GiB. Hi, ok, I missed the information "gz package". Perhaps you need to move the data by just coping folders.

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Sat, 2022-11-05 at 02:34 -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > I have 20 years and probably more email messages than you spoke of. I > don't think any email client on earth is built to hold that volume of > email. Hi, Evolution can handle >1 decade with lots of POP accounts, archiving lots of heavy

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

Steve is it 27 years and my mail server (mail.netwright.net) sits a meter from my left leg. I don't use a third party for email. Never have since 1994, when I set up my first mail server on a unit running Slackware Unix. [Believe it or not, rather than running Sendmail, I was using server

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

Mike said on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 13:23:37 + [snip apologies. >Until seven days ago, and for thirty years prior to >that, I was a user of Microsoft Office Outlook. (That's the client on >the desktop, not the online service.) I had thirty years of business >and personal correspondence in it. A

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

idea, easy to test and if I am correct very easy for you to solve (no reinstall etc). -- Thanks Luigi Cantoni -Original Message- From: Mike mailto:mike%20%3cm...@netwright.net%3e> > To: evolution-list@gnome.org <mailto:evolution-list@gnome.org> Subject: [Evolution] Have I pushed

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

idea, easy to test and if I am correct very easy for you to solve (no reinstall etc). -- Thanks Luigi Cantoni -Original Message- From: Mike To: evolution-list@gnome.org Subject: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go? Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2022 13:23:37 + Maile

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 14:58 +0100, Ralf Mardorf via evolution-list wrote: > > Forwarded Message > > From:    Mike > > To:  Ralf Mardorf via evolution-list > > Subject: Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is > > desi

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 13:51 +, Mike wrote: > Sorry, I missread. I downloaded the the DVD Debian non-free install > package from debian.org directly. No you understood correctly, all the information I recommended to provide, when sending a request to the list, is the version of Evolution. I

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

> Forwarded Message > From:Mike > To: Ralf Mardorf via evolution-list > Subject: Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is > designed to go? > Date:04/11/22 14:42:15 > > It is from the Debian maintainer as I in

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 14:37 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 13:23 +, Mike wrote: > > -- The versions of Evolution on the VM and the new install are the same. > > -- Both are running on Debian 11.5. > > and this version is? The Debian 11.5 version from official repos or

Re: [Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

On Fri, 2022-11-04 at 13:23 +, Mike wrote: > -- The versions of Evolution on the VM and the new install are the same. > -- Both are running on Debian 11.5. Hi, and this version is? The Debian 11.5 version from official repos or from another source? I don't know, but maybe this information

[Evolution] Have I pushed Evolution beyond where it is designed to go?

This is my first post here and it is a long one. I did look at the index of previous posts but there is no way to search through all of them, so I truly do apologize in advance... but maybe, just maybe what I did has pushed out a bug you didn't know about before. This is complicated. I am