On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:31 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 07/13/2010 04:53 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > The packages that they've used have significantly been changed to fit > > the needs of recoll, so I'm not sure sending patches to upstream makes > > sense. > > > > Have they tried doing that yet? > > Rahul hey Rahul, Up stream has commented on the review report clarifying the usage of other libs: > Recoll just includes the rfc 822 + mime analysis part. The code is both compact > and proven robust (imap _server_). The daemon, network, and protocol parts are > not in there. A few years ago no email lib that I looked at would fit the bill > (either big and full of deps or unreliable/unproven). There has been a few > modifications/fixes to the original code to fit Recoll needs, but less than in > the unac part. ... > > Parts of unac are significantly modified for Recoll use. The comment is > misleading, this is not just a "stripped down version of unac". I fixed the > README (for the next version). Recoll could not use the standard package. > > You can find the new README.recoll file at the following link. I hope this > clarifies things: http://bitbucket.org/medoc/recoll/src/tip/unac/ > > ... > > There is also a partial and modified copy of binc imap. As > far as I know this is not packaged on Fedora and not available as a > library, so including the code is the only way to reuse it. > It seems he has lifted code from some of these and used it rather than using them as libs? Do I ask them to send these to upstream? These modifications are specific for the recoll package only it seems. regards, Ankur -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
