Libical: Increasing Minimum Version Requirement

[Allen Winter]

On Sunday 08 February 2009 10:13:09 pm Matt Rogers wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 08:03:12AM -0500, Allen Winter wrote:
> > On Friday 06 February 2009 3:54:55 pm Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > > Allen Winter wrote:
> > > > For trunk, I plan to increase the minimum version requirement
> > > > for the Libcal package from 0.33 to 0.42.  Else the kdepimlibs
> > > > module will no longer build for you.
> > > > 
> > > > If your distribution does not provide version 0.42 (or higher)
> > > > then you will need to install it yourself from source, which can
> > > > be found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/freeassociation
> > > > (or ask you distribution to upgrade this package).
> > > 
> > > How critical is 0.42 versus 0.41? I ask because I am still on Fedora 9 
> > > on my home build machine and I don't know if there are plans to push 
> > > 0.43 to Sulphur (or even to Cambridge; it's built in Rawhide though), 
> > > but 0.41 is current on both. (I can't install the Rawhide package on 
> > > Sulphur due to it needing a newer glibc. But if I have to, I should be 
> > > able to build from the SRPM.)
> > > 
> > Or from a normal, plain old vanilla source code tarball.
> > 
> > Yeah, I know this is a pain, but version 0.42 adds a bug fix that has
> > been haunting us PIMsters for years and I really want to eliminate for good.
> > 
> > OTOH: some distros (suse for example) backported this bug fix to their 0.41 packages.
> > I just can't think of a way to detect if the bug fix is available using CMake.
> > Other then if(distro == suse) => allow 0.41 
> > 
> 
> Which is wrong. We really shouldn't be looking at what distro a user is running for package checks, IMHO.

Agreed.
For the record: I'm not suggesting such a check. 

just trying to provide info as I know it..