On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 09:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Willem Riede wrote: > > > On 01/20/2006 07:37:08 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:26 -0500, Igor Jagec wrote: > >> > Well, it still depends on Beagle :-/ Evolution is a great application, > >> > but the problem is that it provides more features than I need. > >> > Thunderbird is just perfect for me. Ok, I'll play a bit with > >> Evolution, > >> > maybe I figure that I really need some features like Calendar ;) > >> > > >> I think more to the point is that beagle requires evolution-sharp, and > >> evolution-sharp requires evolution. > > > > > > And that begs the question "why?". Leveraging a library is one thing, > > but forcing in the application against users wishes is just wrong. > > > > Willem Riede. > > Can we cut the hyperbole to a minimum level?. Nobody is forcing any user > to install a application or Fedora itself. Can we reduce the library > dependencies or split packages into a more modular fashion is a good > question to ask though. Or maybe, why does evolution-sharp require evolution, and not evolution-data-server? Wouldn't beagle's interest in evolution be data related, and therefore it make more sense for it to use e-d-s, not evolution? Rodd -- "It's a fine line between denial and faith. It's much better on my side" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
