Re: Mutt 1.5.17 and sidebar patch

[Stephan Seitz]

On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 10:16:03PM +0100, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:

Tried that:
Patch not-applied/indexcolor does not apply (enforce with -f)

Hm:
Wende Patch not-applied/indexcolor an
patching file color.c
patching file curs_lib.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 659 (offset 11 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 675 (offset 11 lines).
patching file hdrline.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 103 (offset 4 lines).
Hunk #9 succeeded at 601 (offset 4 lines).
Hunk #10 succeeded at 713 (offset 4 lines).
Hunk #11 succeeded at 735 (offset 4 lines).
Hunk #12 succeeded at 763 (offset 4 lines).
patching file menu.c
patching file mutt_curses.h
Hunk #2 succeeded at 185 (offset 10 lines).
patching file mutt.h
Hunk #1 succeeded at 182 (offset 6 lines).
patching file doc/manual.xml.head
Hunk #1 succeeded at 2016 (offset 179 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 2080 (offset 179 lines).
patching file PATCHES

Besides, if the patch was not applied, mutt would print an error for unknown variables. For testing purposes I downloaded your mutt version from http://www.lxtec.de/debarchiv/ and tested it on my i386 box. It produces the same results as my own compiled version. So there is no difference between your version and my version on two plattforms.

I’m using Debian Testing.

Shade and sweet water!

        Stephan

--
| Stephan Seitz                    E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html |

I compared the ldd output between the two versions, but besides the different header cache libraries and my kerberos support, there are no differences.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature