On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 03:14 -0700, Alex Lancaster wrote: > I downgraded to using pilot-link-0.11.8 on FC4 for this reason (I > don't even try gnome-pilot let alone evolution integration), and seems > to be working OK. I'll file some bugs on bugzilla.redhat.com on the > current pilot-link-0.12.0-0.pre3.0.fc4.1 included in FC4 when I get > time. Interestingly, the pilot-link maintainer, David Desrosiers, has > specifically admonished distributions not to include any of pilot-link > 0.12 pre-test versions and wait until the official 0.12.0 release: I was talking to him last night in #gnome, and he's not happy what fedora are doing - he's getting loads of bugreports that are specific to FC4, and not present in the main release. Is there a specific reason we went so bleeding edge? > See the first announcement of pilot-link-0.12-pre1: > > http://www.pilot-link.org/node/129 > > and a recent posting here: > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-pilot-list/2005-June/msg00011.html > > I know Fedora is supposed to be bleeding edge, but is it wise to > include a version in the distro that it's maintainer specifically > suggests not to? I'm curious to know the reasoning behind including > this version in FC4. Similar. The rawhide patches allow me to sync my palm using gnome-pilot (thanks!) but also delete all my contacts and todo's on my palm! Just a warning for all those of you who don't believe in backups! Richard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part