On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 09:49 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:14 -0500, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
That's a question for the Evo team, I guess - it looks like it could be trivially fixed by moving the folder.db somewhere else, or calling it folder.index or folder.ibex.index or whatever Evolution traditionally filters out.
HPJ, the summary can't be named like this, since, its possible that something like this already exists. .ibex.index has a traditional meaning and would be more of abusing it in the newer versions.
Wouldn't it be possible to use a different directory, e.g. "mail/local-index/folders.db"? That would avoid both problems.
To Evolution's credit, my 500MB folder.db binary blob didn't cause it to crash - it showed up as a bogus local mail folder after about 15 minutes of disk churn - but it did throw errors whenever it needed to pull data for vfolders.
But, the old version shouldn't touch the folders.db automatically, meaning the new summary would be safe, unless the user manually deletes or adds mails to it.
Right. For me, folders.db showed up as having 7 unread mails in it. The mbox parser probably found some satisfactory ^From occurrences. It also made local mail unusable, since it would constantly throw errors and fail to update vfolders (details are a little bit foggy at the moment, but I remember being hindered to the point of not being able to read mail).
Also, it looks like old summary/index files aren't removed - does it require both the sqlite database and summaries now? It increases disk space consumption quite a bit.
That is left purposefully. Incase you are a user switching across versions, probably you would have to recreate summaries every time you do. But first time, we just migrate and don't care later on. So if you aren't a user of that category, a rm of it manually should suffice. [probably some more summaries left on the other accounts]
Ok, if I can just remove the old indexes/summaries, I'm happy :)
Should we ship a patch for older Evolution versions to ignore folders.db? May be worth for power users of SLEs and RHEs, who might still use older version & new version.
I still think relocating folders.db is a better option, since it would work for everyone without necessitating an upgrade. -- Hans Petter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org