On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:31:51 +0100 Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2015/09/12 21:25, Landry Breuil wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 02:51:53PM +0200, Daniel Jakots wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:34:17 +0100, Stuart Henderson > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 2015/09/12 10:00, Daniel Jakots wrote: > > > > > A few days after this email, I made a new claws-mail package on my > > > > > laptop without the patches that were containing the link of the bug > > > > > id 2640 or 2642 (hard way ...). I don't really understand what the > > > > > patches should do but I haven't encountered any problem. > > > > > > > > So how about this with those extra patches (i.e. the ones that > > > > upstream rejected) removed? > > > > > > I guess it's fine. Thanks! > > > > Just for the record, all those patches were added 3 years ago, see > > http://marc.info/?t=134083762400001&r=1&w=2 for history. > > yes, I saw that, but since upstream found problems with the patches, the > sensible thing is to remove them and if somebody wants them brought back, > they can address the problems that were found :) Hi Stuart, Landry, Daniel, Thank you for the update, hoping for a package build soon now: http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/ports/mail/claws-mail/Makefile Also fingers crossed this version fixes the crashes (segfaults) experienced frequently with Claws mail. I'll say something with a backtrace if these continue on the new version once I get a hold of a package on the mirror. Regards, Anton
