CentOS 5 is on Automake 1.7, but I upgraded to build
mhfixmsg once I figured out what the problem was...
It's worth noting that Automake 1.7 was released in September ... of 2002.
Also, versions of Automake older 1.11.6 and 1.12.2 have a security issue
in their generated make distcheck rules.
Would it be possible to expose rmmproc as an option for rmm?
I currently have my profile rmmproc set to rm, since in my
shell rm is aliased to 'refile -normmproc !* +Trash' and
empty is '/usr/local/bin/rmm +Trash !*; folder -pack'
However this makes it difficult to have backups for mhfixmsg,
and
Jerrad wrote:
Would it be possible to expose rmmproc as an option for rmm?
Just a thought, though I understand if it seems like
Yet Another Switch
I had that feeling when putting rmmproc support in mhfixmsg.
But, I agree that it would be useful. Unless there's
strenuous objection, I'll add
Ken Hornstein writes:
CentOS 5 is on Automake 1.7, but I upgraded to build
mhfixmsg once I figured out what the problem was...
It's worth noting that Automake 1.7 was released in September ... of 2002.
Also, versions of Automake older 1.11.6 and 1.12.2 have a security issue
in their generated
Also, versions of Automake older 1.11.6 and 1.12.2 have a security issue
in their generated make distcheck rules.
That's not actually true. The version in RHEL 5 (and hence CentOS) has
been patched to fix this (and other known vulnerabilities). You can't
tell simply by looking at the version
I configured and compiled with --prefix /usr/local
and things worked fine. Unfortunately, the whatnow
prompt reports the following when I try to send:
unable to exec /usr/local/nmh/lib/post: No such file or directory
post is installed in /usr/local/lib/ as per my
configure...
Hmm, after remaking and installing (because I notced my
attempt to change the hash backup to the delete-compatible
.# in configure did not carry over, and manually tweaked
config.h instead) the problem seems to have gone away??
* delete, a friendlier version of rm
I configured and compiled with --prefix /usr/local
and things worked fine. Unfortunately, the whatnow
prompt reports the following when I try to send:
unable to exec /usr/local/nmh/lib/post: No such file or directory
post is installed in /usr/local/lib/ as per my
configure...
Is it possible
On 2013-03-18, at 7:36 PM, belg4...@pthbb.org wrote:
I configured and compiled with --prefix /usr/local
and things worked fine. Unfortunately, the whatnow
prompt reports the following when I try to send:
unable to exec /usr/local/nmh/lib/post: No such file or directory
Unrelated, but this
Ahh, yes, probably a dirty tree/funky dependencies.
I extracted this evening's tarball over yesterday's build,
but I would have expected a reinvocation of configure to
force any necessary updates... however make has its own
way with things :-P
As for Lyndon's comment, yes, having things be in a
Currently we install the etc stuff into ${prefix}/etc, which spams
/usr/local/etc pretty hard when faced with --prefix=/usr/local.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the /usr/local/nmh default prefix, and
would prefer to see it changed to /usr/local, with the configdir
stuff pushed down a level to
On 2013-03-18, at 8:30 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
To me there is no obvious right answer. Can you and Norm just have a
steel-cage match and the winner gets to pick? That would save us from
having to make a decision :-)
No, I think I will just change it to match the rest of the world.
And
On 2013-03-18, at 8:32 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
No, I think I will just change it to match the rest of the world.
And then unplug the Ethernet cable and go sailing for a month ;-)
A bit less glibly, it might be time to lay down the anchor for the 1.6-branch.
I think we have a few more
On 2013-03-18, at 8:53 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
1.6-branch
1.5. Doh.
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
On 2013-03-18, at 8:30 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
Norm spoke up that he
liked it the old way (even though it was causing him man page problems that
he ultimately resolved).
Yes, but Norm is just a grumpy old Dad :-)
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
A bit less glibly, it might be time to lay down the anchor for the
1.6-branch. I think we have a few more 'breakage' things in the queue
we've been waiting to inflict on the masses ...
Maybe I'm not up on my nautical termology, and I know you sent out a
revision that said 1.5, but I'm confused.
On 2013-03-18, at 9:29 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
Maybe I'm not up on my nautical termology, and I know you sent out a
revision that said 1.5, but I'm confused. Is it you're thinking that
1.5 is getting a bit long in the tooth (was released in June of last
year) and you want to think about a
Ahh, yes, probably a dirty tree/funky dependencies.
I extracted this evening's tarball over yesterday's build,
but I would have expected a reinvocation of configure to
force any necessary updates... however make has its own
way with things :-P
Ah, I see. The problem is that those paths are
18 matches
Mail list logo
