In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > OK, I've done some testing and the results are: > > Successful compile: > Linux/x86 Debian stable (sarge) > Linux/x86 Fedora FC2 > Solaris/SPARC > Linux/AMD64 > NetBSD
Fine!!! > (I didn't actually test the binaries, just that they could be built.) I can test the binaries on NetBSD for some days if you agree... > Failure: > OpenBSD/x86: I tried the sourceforge compile farm OpenBSD box, and it > built OK except that it screwed up on the makefile in the man/ directory > by trying to build manpages before man.sed (despite the dependency rule > directing otherwise). It's not a simple GNU-makeism (because NetBSD works > fine). So I propose to ignore this as a bug in that make unless somebody > submits a patch and rationale. Agreed. I would suggest asking for some help in a OpenBSD mailing list or newsgroup. Perhaps it is a bug in OpenBSD's make. > I think the problems Igor was having are because the makefile rules for > rerunning autoconf were kicking in (perhaps a clock skew problem between > the machine he ran autoconf on and the one he ran make on?). Anyway, GNU > autoconf requires GNU m4 (no avoiding that) but a proper release tarball > including a configure script should have no problems. Agreed. I made the fixed tarball in a machine in Spain and transferred it to a machine in the United States. "make" should use GMT as universal time reference but, even in this case, both machines can have a delay longer than the time required to transfer/unpack/build the new binary. The machine in Asturias has certainly a delay as it is not using NTP now. > So I think we could go ahead and roll out a point release. It's fine for me. I will not complain, though. ;-) Cheers, Igor. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
