Re: compile error of current git on F15

2011-11-25 Thread David Bremner
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:45:20 +, Darren McGuicken 
mailing-notm...@fernseed.info wrote:
 Hi guys, I assume this is old news, although I haven't seen anything
 else mentioned on list since the chain Dirk started - there's a koji
 build of 0.9 for rawhide, the source rpm of which contains a gmime 2.6
 patch.  I recently moved from Ubuntu to Fedora 16 on the netbook so I
 grabbed the patch and spec file, updated it to point to the 0.10 tarball
 and can confirm that the patch still applies cleanly and the notmuch
 build appears fine (crypto et al).

Just confirm, all the crypto tests pass with this patch? In that case,
can we have the patch (preferably as generated by git-send-email)? Or
did I miss it somewhere in this thread?

d
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: compile error of current git on F15

2011-11-24 Thread Darren McGuicken
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:55:16 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins 
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
 On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 05:35:29 -0700, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org 
 wrote:
  This used to work and used to be supported and was broken in a
  recent notmuch patch.

 If you don't have access to gmime 2.4, then maybe you could look into
 providing patches for gmime 2.6 support, or alternately into disabling
 the notmuch functionality that does not work with gmime 2.6 if only
 2.6 is available.

Hi guys, I assume this is old news, although I haven't seen anything
else mentioned on list since the chain Dirk started - there's a koji
build of 0.9 for rawhide, the source rpm of which contains a gmime 2.6
patch.  I recently moved from Ubuntu to Fedora 16 on the netbook so I
grabbed the patch and spec file, updated it to point to the 0.10 tarball
and can confirm that the patch still applies cleanly and the notmuch
build appears fine (crypto et al).

Assuming this mail sends, of course :-)


pgp8B9YzVCCLp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Fwd: Re: compile error of current git on F15

2011-06-02 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
I got the following response off-list from the gmime lead, which he's ok
with my re-posting here:

On 06/02/2011 08:53 AM, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> I don't know why Fedora 15 ships 2.5.x, that seems like a really silly
> thing to do. I think I recall the Balsa guys bringing this up in the
> past and I thought I explained to the Fedora guys that 2.5.x was API
> unstable. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding or something.
> 
> That said, as far as timeline goes, I think 2.6 is basically ready for a
> final release, I've just been busy with other stuff lately. Assuming you
> don't have any major outstanding issues with the crypto stuff, I can
> just roll out a 2.6.0 release (which hopefully F15 will pick up, or, if
> not, just check gmime-2.6 >= 2.5.7) at any time.
> 
> I think notmuch is the only thing making heavy use of the 2.6 crypto
> stuff right now, so you guys have priority.

So this actually makes me re-think my earlier objections to patches
against an unstable API, on two grounds:

 0) if we're the driving force for 2.6 crypto, we should exercise it so
we can give reasonable feedback before stabilization happens.

 1) it sounds like the API is near stabilization anyway, so it won't be
too much hair-pulling, other than any changes we recommend.

So if we can just get 0.6 released, i'll commit to making patches to
support gmime 2.6 for the next version.

(i'll probably start by urging debian's gmime folks to put a version of
gmime2.6 into the experimental repo for us to play with)

--dkg

PS i still recommend that F15 should not ship gmime2.6 by default.  that
seems like a recipe for this kind of trouble.

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1030 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: 



Re: Fwd: Re: compile error of current git on F15

2011-06-02 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
I got the following response off-list from the gmime lead, which he's ok
with my re-posting here:

On 06/02/2011 08:53 AM, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
 I don't know why Fedora 15 ships 2.5.x, that seems like a really silly
 thing to do. I think I recall the Balsa guys bringing this up in the
 past and I thought I explained to the Fedora guys that 2.5.x was API
 unstable. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding or something.
 
 That said, as far as timeline goes, I think 2.6 is basically ready for a
 final release, I've just been busy with other stuff lately. Assuming you
 don't have any major outstanding issues with the crypto stuff, I can
 just roll out a 2.6.0 release (which hopefully F15 will pick up, or, if
 not, just check gmime-2.6 = 2.5.7) at any time.
 
 I think notmuch is the only thing making heavy use of the 2.6 crypto
 stuff right now, so you guys have priority.

So this actually makes me re-think my earlier objections to patches
against an unstable API, on two grounds:

 0) if we're the driving force for 2.6 crypto, we should exercise it so
we can give reasonable feedback before stabilization happens.

 1) it sounds like the API is near stabilization anyway, so it won't be
too much hair-pulling, other than any changes we recommend.

So if we can just get 0.6 released, i'll commit to making patches to
support gmime 2.6 for the next version.

(i'll probably start by urging debian's gmime folks to put a version of
gmime2.6 into the experimental repo for us to play with)

--dkg

PS i still recommend that F15 should not ship gmime2.6 by default.  that
seems like a recipe for this kind of trouble.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: compile error of current git on F15

2011-06-01 Thread Dirk Hohndel
On Tue, 31 May 2011 12:29:28 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor 
d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
 i'm CC'ing the upstream lead developer of gmime here to see if he has
 any thoughts (and can correct any misrepresentations from me) -- Hi Jeffrey!
 
 On 05/30/2011 02:43 PM, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
  On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:44:05 -0700, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org 
  wrote:
  CC -O2 notmuch-reply.o
  notmuch-reply.c: In function ‘notmuch_reply_command’:
  notmuch-reply.c:658:3: error: unknown type name ‘GMimeSession’
  notmuch-reply.c:659:3: warning: passing argument 1 of 
  ‘g_mime_gpg_context_new’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by 
  default]
  /usr/include/gmime-2.6/gmime/gmime-gpg-context.h:64:21: note: expected 
  ‘GMimePasswordRequestFunc’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
  make: *** [notmuch-reply.o] Error 1
 
  This seems to have been introduced in Jameson's crypto patch series...
 
  ./configure shows:
 
  Checking for Xapian development files... Yes (1.2.4).
  Checking for GMime development files... Yes (gmime-2.6).
  Checking for Glib development files (= 2.14)... Yes.
  
  Hey, Dirk.  Looks like you're using gmime-2.6, which is something I've
  never looked at, and it looks like there are API changes.  This of
  course doesn't help you, Dirk, but this probably means we should require
  libgmime-2.4, at least until we can figure out how to support both
  versions, which I'm not sure how to handle.
  
  Dirk, just out of curiosity, what system are you running that is
  provides gmime 2.6?
 
 F15 probably means Fedora 15.

Correct
 
 gmime 2.6 has not been released yet; gmime 2.5 is the development
 version (which itself has an unstable API); the project uses the
 even=stable/odd=unstable version numbering scheme.
 
 As the dev version, gmime 2.5 identifies itself as 2.6.  I'm not sure i
 can justify this decision.  Jeffrey, can you explain?
 
 If F15 does not have gmime 2.4 available in it, it's possible that it
 may not be able to build notmuch :/

That's where I am right now. But here's the odd thing: gmime-2.6 support
was explicitly added to the configure script last year:
http://notmuch.198994.n3.nabble.com/PATCH-configure-Add-support-for-GMime-2-6-td722706.html

And it's only a recent change to notmuch that broke the build on F15
(it's one of the patches for the crypto support).

So in my book this is a regression for notmuch!
 
 I don't think that notmuch should attempt to target a library with an
 unstable API.  But if anyone is interested in preparing for the gmime
 2.6 release (maybe jeffrey can hint at the timeline for us) may want to
 prepare changesets that #ifdef the relevant code depending on the API
 version.
 
 Once gmime 2.6 is released, we'll need to decide if we want to remain
 compatible with the old API as well, or just require gmime 2.6; but i
 don't think we need to cross that bridge right now.

Given what I wrote above you'll be unsurprised that I don't agree with
this interpretation of the situation.

This used to work and used to be supported and was broken in a recent
notmuch patch.

/D
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: compile error of current git on F15

2011-06-01 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 05:35:29 -0700, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org wrote:
 This used to work and used to be supported and was broken in a recent
 notmuch patch.

Hey, Dirk.  I would actually say that support for gmime 2.6 was merely
coincidental up until now.  For all functionality we had been using, the
API in 2.4 and 2.6 was the same (the patch that you point to only
modifies the config file, not any of the code itself).  But the recent
crypto support uses the gmime 2.4 crypto API, which apparently has
changed in versions of gmime 2.4.

If you don't have access to gmime 2.4, then maybe you could look into
providing patches for gmime 2.6 support, or alternately into disabling
the notmuch functionality that does not work with gmime 2.6 if only 2.6
is available.

jamie.


pgpddGGcq9phQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: compile error of current git on F15

2011-05-31 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
i'm CC'ing the upstream lead developer of gmime here to see if he has
any thoughts (and can correct any misrepresentations from me) -- Hi Jeffrey!

On 05/30/2011 02:43 PM, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
 On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:44:05 -0700, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org 
 wrote:
 CC -O2 notmuch-reply.o
 notmuch-reply.c: In function ‘notmuch_reply_command’:
 notmuch-reply.c:658:3: error: unknown type name ‘GMimeSession’
 notmuch-reply.c:659:3: warning: passing argument 1 of 
 ‘g_mime_gpg_context_new’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
 /usr/include/gmime-2.6/gmime/gmime-gpg-context.h:64:21: note: expected 
 ‘GMimePasswordRequestFunc’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
 make: *** [notmuch-reply.o] Error 1

 This seems to have been introduced in Jameson's crypto patch series...

 ./configure shows:

 Checking for Xapian development files... Yes (1.2.4).
 Checking for GMime development files... Yes (gmime-2.6).
 Checking for Glib development files (= 2.14)... Yes.
 
 Hey, Dirk.  Looks like you're using gmime-2.6, which is something I've
 never looked at, and it looks like there are API changes.  This of
 course doesn't help you, Dirk, but this probably means we should require
 libgmime-2.4, at least until we can figure out how to support both
 versions, which I'm not sure how to handle.
 
 Dirk, just out of curiosity, what system are you running that is
 provides gmime 2.6?

F15 probably means Fedora 15.

gmime 2.6 has not been released yet; gmime 2.5 is the development
version (which itself has an unstable API); the project uses the
even=stable/odd=unstable version numbering scheme.

As the dev version, gmime 2.5 identifies itself as 2.6.  I'm not sure i
can justify this decision.  Jeffrey, can you explain?

If F15 does not have gmime 2.4 available in it, it's possible that it
may not be able to build notmuch :/

I don't think that notmuch should attempt to target a library with an
unstable API.  But if anyone is interested in preparing for the gmime
2.6 release (maybe jeffrey can hint at the timeline for us) may want to
prepare changesets that #ifdef the relevant code depending on the API
version.

Once gmime 2.6 is released, we'll need to decide if we want to remain
compatible with the old API as well, or just require gmime 2.6; but i
don't think we need to cross that bridge right now.

Regards,

--dkg



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: compile error of current git on F15

2011-05-30 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:44:05 -0700, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org wrote:
 CC -O2 notmuch-reply.o
 notmuch-reply.c: In function ‘notmuch_reply_command’:
 notmuch-reply.c:658:3: error: unknown type name ‘GMimeSession’
 notmuch-reply.c:659:3: warning: passing argument 1 of 
 ‘g_mime_gpg_context_new’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
 /usr/include/gmime-2.6/gmime/gmime-gpg-context.h:64:21: note: expected 
 ‘GMimePasswordRequestFunc’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
 make: *** [notmuch-reply.o] Error 1
 
 This seems to have been introduced in Jameson's crypto patch series...
 
 ./configure shows:
 
 Checking for Xapian development files... Yes (1.2.4).
 Checking for GMime development files... Yes (gmime-2.6).
 Checking for Glib development files (= 2.14)... Yes.

Hey, Dirk.  Looks like you're using gmime-2.6, which is something I've
never looked at, and it looks like there are API changes.  This of
course doesn't help you, Dirk, but this probably means we should require
libgmime-2.4, at least until we can figure out how to support both
versions, which I'm not sure how to handle.

Dirk, just out of curiosity, what system are you running that is
provides gmime 2.6?

jamie.


pgp7QYLtQeoDl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch