Re: 1.8RC2?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 06:17:09 -0800, David Levine wrote: > How does 1.8RC2 look? BSD users, have any of you tried it? > > For RedHat and Fedora users, you can install or upgrade using one of: > sudo dnf install nmh --enablerepo=3Dupdates-testing > sudo dnf upgrade nmh --enablerepo=3Dupdates-testing Success on Mageia Linux 8. Working as promised, using live for email as I type. > > David > jerry -- // Jerry Heyman | Parahrasing Thomas Sowell: // Amigan Forever :-) | Stop trying to reason with unreasonable \\ // heymanj at acm dot org | people. This reduces your correspondence \X/ | and your blood pressure.
Re: 1.8RC2?
Ken wrote: > >> But ... did we ever get a resolution on the long lines POP patch? > > > >No. How about we defer to post-1.8? > > Can we tenatively say that it's targeted for 1.8.1? Sure, that sounds great. And it would be great to have shorter release cycles for 1.8.1 (and beyond), but I know that life gets in the way. David
Re: 1.8RC2?
>> I wanted to test it on MacOS X. > >I did. Success both with debug and non-debug builds. > >> But ... did we ever get a resolution on the long lines POP patch? > >No. How about we defer to post-1.8? Can we tenatively say that it's targeted for 1.8.1? --Ken
Re: 1.8RC2?
Bakul wrote: > On Jan 28, 2023, at 6:17 AM, David Levine wrote: > > > > How does 1.8RC2 look? BSD users, have any of you tried it? > > Works on FreeBSD 13. make check succeeds + random commands > I tried worked fine. Thank you, Bakul. David
Re: 1.8RC2?
On Jan 28, 2023, at 6:17 AM, David Levine wrote: > > How does 1.8RC2 look? BSD users, have any of you tried it? Works on FreeBSD 13. make check succeeds + random commands I tried worked fine.
Re: 1.8RC2?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 11:54:06 -0800, David Levine writes: >Including Stephen Gildea, the Debian maintainer of xlbiff. stephen's already indicated that he'll look into it. https://bugs.debian.org/#1029752 >I hope the issue can be resolved. same here. originally i slightly suspected the 'welcome to nmh' stuff, but that seems well enough guarded against non-interactive use to be the trigger of xlbiff's autopkgtest gotcha. (the welcomes certainly never interfere with my use of exmh or mh-e, but typically surprise me some days later when i happen to run a direct nmh command for the first time since an upgrade...) -- Alexander Zangerl + GPG Key 2FCCF66BB963BD5F + https://snafu.priv.at/ The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. -- BSD fortune Nah, the problem is that it doesn't have enough chlorine. -- Lionel in ASR It also lacks an undertow for the weak ones. -- Joe Creighton in ASR signature.asc Description: Digital Signature
Re: 1.8RC2?
Ken wrote: > I wanted to test it on MacOS X. I did. Success both with debug and non-debug builds. > But ... did we ever get a resolution on the long lines POP patch? No. How about we defer to post-1.8? David
Re: 1.8RC2?
Including Stephen Gildea, the Debian maintainer of xlbiff. Ralph wrote: > Finding a Debian system, I think it's more that package xlbiff depends > on nmh. So it does, thanks. I hope the issue can be resolved. David
Re: 1.8RC2?
>If all goes well, I hope to release 1.8 within a week. I wanted to test it on MacOS X. But ... did we ever get a resolution on the long lines POP patch? --Ken
Re: 1.8RC2?
Hi David, > Alexander wrote: > > https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=nmh > > It looks like that dependent package is xbiff. Do you know how that > is identified as a dependecy? I don't see it as an explicit > dependency in nmh itself. Finding a Debian system, I think it's more that package xlbiff depends on nmh. $ dep=Depends,PreDepends,Suggests,Recommends $ apt-rdepends -r -f $dep -s $dep nmh Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done nmh Reverse Depends: exmh (1:2.9.0-2) Reverse Depends: xlbiff (4.5.2-1) exmh Reverse Suggests: nmh (1.7.1-7) Reverse Recommends: muttprint (0.73-10) muttprint xlbiff $ Using apt-cache(1) to look forwards, I see: muttprint Enhances: mail-reader, news-reader Recommends: mutt | sylpheed | gnus | xfmail | exmh | mail-reader xlbiff Depends: nmh exmh Depends: nmh | mh, mime-support nmh Conflicts: mh Provides: mail-reader, mh Recommends: default-mta | mail-transport-agent Replaces: mh Suggests: exmh -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: 1.8RC2?
Alexander wrote: > debian: works well. however, 1.8 might not make it into the upcoming > release (upload freeze is just weeks away and one nmh-dependent package > has a test suite bug that blocks nmh from going in... > https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=nmh) It looks like that dependent package is xbiff. Do you know how that is identified as a dependecy? I don't see it as an explicit dependency in nmh itself. David
Re: 1.8RC2?
Pascal wrote: > I have been using it (and previously rc1) on OpenBSD since it came out. > No issues so far. Thank you, Pascal. If all goes well, I hope to release 1.8 within a week. David
