>>>>> "NM" == Nigel Metheringham writes: NM> Palm support seems to be especially cursed in FC4. There are some NM> really low level problems - something that appears to be NM> kernel/udev/hotplug (or quite likely a timing related bug in that NM> set) that prevents even the command line pilot-xfer tools working NM> in many cases (which completely destroys the possibility of NM> gnome-pilot working). NM> Then gnome-pilot has a batch of bugs including timing related on NM> ttyUSB, broken API wrt to pilot-link (which it links to), broken NM> conduits and broken evolution integration. NM> Someone really really doesn't like this stuff :-/ 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: 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. Alex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
