Joshua Megerman wrote:
1) A shared library with a stable API would make recompiling outside
programs (e.g., QmailAdmin) unnecessary, which would be a Good Thing(tm).
It is that 'stable API' that is the killer. I know some ./configure
options change the interface to libvpopmail. I don't
Tom Collins wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 3:33 PM, Rick Widmer wrote:
There is a patch for qmailadmin on SourceForge. Its tracker number is
[1795973]. On the other hand, this weekend I will release 5.4.23 that
backs out the change that caused this problem. I want a stable
release that does
1) A shared library with a stable API would make recompiling outside
programs (e.g., QmailAdmin) unnecessary, which would be a Good
Thing(tm).
It is that 'stable API' that is the killer. I know some ./configure
options change the interface to libvpopmail. I don't know which ones
they are.
Hi I just wanted to follow up (seems like very few people who figure out
an issue themselves do):
If anyone else gets this error. Check you vpasswd file for extra \n's
and the end of the file.
I'd think that this would be more a common problem for everyone. Seems
only to have issues with
On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Joshua Megerman wrote:
Perhaps the first step is to document the API as it currently
stands, and
give people the option to build a shared library with the caviat
that if
you reconfigure vpopmail, you need to rebuild those things that link
against it. That would
On 2007-09-24, at 1120, Joshua Megerman wrote:
First off, let me prefice this by saying that while I understand the
concept of shared libraries, I don't understand the underlying
mechanics
of how the OS handles them,
i'm not sure exactly how far underlying you don't understand, but
On 2007-09-25, at 0513, Rick Widmer wrote:
Joshua Megerman wrote:
1) A shared library with a stable API would make recompiling outside
programs (e.g., QmailAdmin) unnecessary, which would be a Good
Thing(tm).
It is that 'stable API' that is the killer. I know some ./
configure options
On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Joshua Megerman wrote:
Perhaps the first step is to document the API as it currently
stands, and
give people the option to build a shared library with the caviat
that if
you reconfigure vpopmail, you need to rebuild those things that link
against it. That
On 2007-09-24, at 1120, Joshua Megerman wrote:
First off, let me prefice this by saying that while I understand the
concept of shared libraries, I don't understand the underlying
mechanics
of how the OS handles them,
i'm not sure exactly how far underlying you don't understand, but
On Sep 25, 2007, at 10:06 AM, John Simpson wrote:
the idea of splitting the domains and mailboxes into different
directories has been around forever, there's no excuse for somebody
to not have made the adjustment by now.
I'm all for keeping it, but someone should fix it. On my server,
At 19.48 25/09/2007, you wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 10:06 AM, John Simpson wrote:
the idea of splitting the domains and mailboxes into different
directories has been around forever, there's no excuse for somebody
to not have made the adjustment by now.
I'm all for keeping it, but someone
Tom Collins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 10:06 AM, John Simpson wrote:
the idea of splitting the domains and mailboxes into different
directories has been around forever, there's no excuse for somebody to
not have made the adjustment by now.
I'm all for keeping it, but someone should fix it.
-Original Message-
From: DAve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:13 PM
To: vchkpw@inter7.com
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Shared libvpopmail thoughts
Tom Collins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 10:06 AM, John Simpson wrote:
the idea of splitting the domains and
Tren Blackburn wrote:
-Original Message-
From: DAve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:13 PM
To: vchkpw@inter7.com
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Shared libvpopmail thoughts
Tom Collins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 10:06 AM, John Simpson wrote:
the idea of splitting
DAve wrote:
Traction! Finally! I'll up the ante to guaranteed 24 hour turn around on
testing any fixes, I'll setup a VMWare server just so I can test any
patches.
But that's not all... I will also throw in a pristine copy of a Mac
rescue CD with all OSes from 7.1 to 8.6 including all
On 2007-09-25, at 1331, Joshua Megerman wrote:
i vote for a and c during a transition period, then c as the
only option after that.
in either case, i think d might be taking the idea too far.
Yeah, I realized that after the fact. I'm great ad coming up with
lots of
ideas of what can be
On 2007-09-25, at 1348, Tom Collins wrote:
I'm all for keeping it, but someone should fix it. On my server,
with a cdb backend, I have the following structure:
main directory: 65 domains
0: 25 domains
1: 2 domains
2: 2 domains
3: 0 domains
4: 3 domains
5: 44 domains
to me this looks like
On 2007-09-25, at 1836, Rick Widmer wrote:
The difference between shared and static libraries isn't in the
code. It is all compiler options and when the linking actually
happens. The problem as I see it is ./configure options like --
enable-clear-password. This option changes the table
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 08:00:16 pm John Simpson wrote:
On 2007-09-25, at 1331, Joshua Megerman wrote:
i vote for a and c during a transition period, then c as the
only option after that.
in either case, i think d might be taking the idea too far.
Yeah, I realized that after the
Good afternoon,
On 25/9/07 at 12:41 PM -0400, John Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'm not sure exactly how far underlying you don't understand, but here's a
fairly simple overview
of the seedy underside of program linking and the difference between static
(i.e. compile-time) and
dynamic
20 matches
Mail list logo
