Menu
▾
▴
fetchmail-devel
|
From: R.O. B. <com...@bl...> - 2004-06-19 03:28:40
|
Hi, dear hackers, On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:51:10 +0200, Matthias Andree <ma...@dt...> wrote: > I've automake-ified fetchmail, but haven't commited the (huge!) change [ ... snip ... ] > > | The prerequisite packages are: > | > | - GNU autoconf >= 2.54 > | - GNU automake >= 1.7 > | - GNU gettext >= 0.13 > | - GNU m4 > | - bison or yacc > | - flex or lex [ ... snip ... ] Hmmpf, does this mean I've to do a reinstall of all those auto* stuff ? Currently I'm running SuSE 7.3 with autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.52 automake (GNU automake) 1.4-p5 gettext (GNU gettext) 0.10.37 GNU m4 1.4o GNU Bison version 1.28 ... I'm used to NOT reinstall every new distribution release on my boxes. And I usually grapped every new fetchmail tarball from ESR and could compile it like a charme although I've somtimes not the cutting edge of generation software installed. Question: Isn't it possible to apply the changes in a manner that enables generation with older auto* tools too ? THX for Your efforts Rolf -- Dipl.phys. Rudolf Otto Blättner, D 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany. |
|
From: R.O. B. <com...@bl...> - 2004-06-19 04:08:14
|
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:35:28 -0400, Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> wrote: > R.O. Blättner wrote: > > I'm used to NOT reinstall every new distribution release on my boxes. > > > > And I usually grapped every new fetchmail tarball from ESR and could Sorry, typo: I wanted to type "grabbed" ... > > compile it like a charme although I've somtimes not the cutting edge > > of generation software installed. > > You'll still be able to compile the released tarball just fine; you don't > need that list of tools to do that. Autoconf and the rest are necessary > for going from what's in the code repository to what you see in the > release tarball. But after that, none of that stuff is necessary. Sounds good :-) > In other words, if you only work from releases, nothing will change for > you. But now we have the ability to get involved in the process before > release, and that's where autoconf et al come in. Fine ! Did I get it right that this is opposed to ESR's tarballs where always some auto* stuff was running while doing "make config" ? Hi, Rob, many THX for Your quick and enlightening response ! So I may continue to test (nearly) every release as I've done in the past ... :-) When time permits I may contribute some fixes too in the future. Bye, Rolf -- Dipl.phys. Rudolf Otto Blättner, D 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany. |
|
From: Rob F. <rf...@fu...> - 2004-06-19 04:25:47
|
R.O. Blättner wrote: > Did I get it right that this is opposed to ESR's tarballs where > always some auto* stuff was running while doing "make config" ? I'm not sure I understand your question.... The tarballs we produce will be very much like ESR's tarballs. Whenever you run "configure", that configure script was produced by autoconf. In the past it was ESR's installation of autoconf that produced the configure script. Autoconf itself never actually runs on your machine when you compile fetchmail, only the script it produces. Now it will be our (the main developers) installations of autoconf that produce the configure script. Except now our installations of automake will also contribute, which makes things easier for us. That change will not be very noticable to you unless you pay attention to the makefiles or get the code from the Subversion repository. > Hi, Rob, many THX for Your quick and enlightening response ! You're welcome! > So I may continue to test (nearly) every release > as I've done in the past ... :-) > > When time permits I may contribute some fixes too in the future. Looking forward to it! -- ==============================| "A microscope locked in on one point Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> |Never sees what kind of room that it's in" http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind" |
|
From: Matthias A. <ma...@dt...> - 2004-06-19 04:50:28
|
Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> writes: > Whenever you run "configure", that configure script was produced by > autoconf. In the past it was ESR's installation of autoconf that produced > the configure script. Autoconf itself never actually runs on your machine > when you compile fetchmail, only the script it produces. Now it will be > our (the main developers) installations of autoconf that produce the > configure script. BTW, the automake change has been committed. Cc: me on reports of all failures. -- Matthias Andree Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 |
|
From: R.O. B. <com...@bl...> - 2004-06-19 04:56:22
|
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 04:20:37 +0200, Matthias Andree <ma...@dt...> wrote: > "R.O. Blättner" <com...@bl...> writes: > > > Hmmpf, does this mean I've to do a reinstall of all those auto* stuff > > ? > > You only need all that stuff if you intend to develop fetchmail. If > you're only downloading some .tar.gz, compile and use it, this is not > relevant to you. O.K., sounds good ! > > Currently I'm running SuSE 7.3 with > > SuSE Linux 7.3 has been unmaintained and has unfixed security bugs in > kernels and daemons that make it unsuitable for use in networks, even as > a client. Upgrade as soon as possible. Will do so, when I'll be done with all my f*cked graphic cards X11 configurations.. :-( > > I'm used to NOT reinstall every new distribution release on my boxes. Reasoning above .. > > And I usually grapped every new fetchmail tarball from ESR and could > > compile it like a charme although I've somtimes not the cutting edge > > of generation software installed. > > tarballs will continue to work the same way for you, but the whole > development is easier for us in the long run. Fine with the tarballs. Sure, it's the right way for ongoing development. > > Question: Isn't it possible to apply the changes in a manner that > > enables generation with older auto* tools too ? > > Nope. Unless you pay, that is. I believe you don't care any longer after > the answers given above :) Well spoken :-) Hi, Matthias, thanks for Your answers! Next time You don't need do address me personally since I'm subscribed to fetchmail-devel too ... THX, bye, Rolf -- Dipl.phys. Rudolf Otto Blättner, D 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany. |
|
From: Rob F. <rf...@fu...> - 2004-06-19 05:05:47
|
R.O. Blättner wrote: > Next time You don't need do address me personally since > I'm subscribed to fetchmail-devel too ... That reminds me... The fetchmail-friends list didn't have replies set to go back to the list, and there are well-known arguments for that. For those reasons, I put it that way on the new lists. But since these are new lists, it's reasonable to consider switching to the "munge reply-to" setting. Are there any preferences either way? -- ==============================| "A microscope locked in on one point Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> |Never sees what kind of room that it's in" http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind" |
|
From: Matthias A. <ma...@dt...> - 2004-06-19 05:15:04
|
Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> writes: > But since these are new lists, it's reasonable to consider switching to the > "munge reply-to" setting. Are there any preferences either way? Yes, the answer is plain and simple "don't." Reply-To: serves no purpose makes replying off-list hard when there are valid reasons to reply off-list (for a chat or something), and it can cause embarrassment when the user's mailer doesn't warn the answer is redirected. <URL:http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html> -- Matthias Andree Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 |
|
From: Rob F. <rf...@fu...> - 2004-06-19 06:12:25
|
Matthias Andree wrote: > Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> writes: > > But since these are new lists, it's reasonable to consider switching > > to the "munge reply-to" setting. Are there any preferences either > > way? > > Yes, the answer is plain and simple "don't." > > Reply-To: serves no purpose makes replying off-list hard when there are > valid reasons to reply off-list (for a chat or something), and it can > cause embarrassment when the user's mailer doesn't warn the answer is > redirected. Well, I somewhat disagree, but I don't feel very strongly about it, so I'm fine with leaving it alone. > <URL:http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html> Yeah, that's the well-known argument page I was referring to. There's also a reply-to-helpful answering page, but I won't continue the argument. I was just checking. :-) -- ==============================| "A microscope locked in on one point Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> |Never sees what kind of room that it's in" http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind" |
|
From: Rob <rob...@ho...> - 2004-06-19 10:51:06
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: fet...@be... > [mailto:fet...@be...] On Behalf Of Rob Funk > > That reminds me... > The fetchmail-friends list didn't have replies set to go back > to the list, > and there are well-known arguments for that. For those > reasons, I put it that way on the new lists. > > But since these are new lists, it's reasonable to consider > switching to the > "munge reply-to" setting. Are there any preferences either way? Well, as you can probably guess from the line above my .sig, I'll argue in favour. Yes, having the reply-to set makes it slightly harder to contact somebody directly about an issue, but only slightly. What it does stop is the all too common problem of somebody either mailing you directly, and via the list, or as I often get, mailing me instead of the list. I would say that for the -devel list, leaving it as is should be fine, developers generally being somewhat more clueful. For the general -users list, with it's higher percentage of less aware people, I'd be strongly in favour of setting the reply-to to be the list. PLEASE - keep list traffic on the list. Email sent directly to me may be ignored utterly. -- Rob | What part of "no" was it you didn't understand? |
|
From: Rob F. <rf...@fu...> - 2004-06-19 13:48:15
|
Rob wrote: > I would say that for the -devel list, leaving it as is should be fine, > developers generally being somewhat more clueful. For the general > -users list, with it's higher percentage of less aware people, I'd be > strongly in favour of setting the reply-to to be the list. That's actually the guideline I most often go by when setting up a new list. How's it sound to you, Matthias? (BTW, I finally found Kmail's Reply-To-List function. Now I just need to find some Mail-Followup-To support.) -- ==============================| "A microscope locked in on one point Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> |Never sees what kind of room that it's in" http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind" |
|
From: Matthias A. <ma...@dt...> - 2004-06-19 15:47:55
|
Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> writes: [reply-to for the clueless] > How's it sound to you, Matthias? I object to reply-to munging throughout. If the people are uneducated, they can learn. Pressing G or clicking "reply all" is neither hard nor inexplicable. > (BTW, I finally found Kmail's Reply-To-List function. Now I just need to > find some Mail-Followup-To support.) KMail sucks *ducks* -- Matthias Andree Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 |
|
From: Rob <rob...@ho...> - 2004-06-19 17:07:32
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: fet...@be... > [mailto:fet...@be...] On Behalf Of Matthias Andree > > I object to reply-to munging throughout. If the people are uneducated, > they can learn. Pressing G or clicking "reply all" is neither hard nor > inexplicable. No, it's not hard for you, nor most techies. However keep in mind that many people who come to the -users list for help *aren't* techies. Most of them are unable to contemplate reading the man page, searching the list archive or even using Google. Expecting such people to understand the concept of managing the reply addresses is, frankly, being overly optomistic. If the reply-to is set to the list address then it means that people who try to help don't get bombarded with emails from people who assume that you are the list. While in theory I could set the reply-to according to the list I'm dealing with, when you're dealing with a number of lists that gets a little silly. Just remember, these days having a clue is an optional extra for using Linux :) PLEASE - keep list traffic on the list. Email sent directly to me may be ignored utterly. -- Rob | What part of "no" was it you didn't understand? |
|
From: Graham W. <bo...@de...> - 2004-06-26 19:14:27
|
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 03:47:49PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> writes: > > How's it sound to you, Matthias? > > I object to reply-to munging throughout. If the people are uneducated, > they can learn. Pressing G or clicking "reply all" is neither hard nor > inexplicable. I also object to reply-to munging. And, for the record, I don't like subject tags either. I have a tool to delete those though, so it's less of an issue for me. -- gram |
|
From: Matthias A. <ma...@dt...> - 2004-06-19 05:07:23
|
"R.O. Blättner" <com...@bl...> writes: >> SuSE Linux 7.3 has been unmaintained and has unfixed security bugs in >> kernels and daemons that make it unsuitable for use in networks, even as >> a client. Upgrade as soon as possible. > > Will do so, when I'll be done with all my f*cked graphic cards > X11 configurations.. :-( I don't recall 7.3 details, but the 9.X SuSE versions are rather comfortable to configure with respect to X11, OTOH, I have cheap brand cards from the mainstream, Ati R128, Matrox G100/200/550, Intel embedded graphics and such stuff where drivers for 2D aren't an issue... > Next time You don't need do address me personally since > I'm subscribed to fetchmail-devel too ... Then teach your mailer about Mail-Followup-To:, mine will follow your instructions. :-) -- Matthias Andree Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 |
|
From: R.O. B. <com...@bl...> - 2004-06-19 05:21:02
|
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:25:39 -0400, Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> wrote: > R.O. Blättner wrote: > > Did I get it right that this is opposed to ESR's tarballs where > > always some auto* stuff was running while doing "make config" ? > > I'm not sure I understand your question.... My failure :-) > The tarballs we produce will be very much like ESR's tarballs. Sounds good ! > Whenever you run "configure", that configure script was produced by > autoconf. In the past it was ESR's installation of autoconf that produced > the configure script. Autoconf itself never actually runs on your machine > when you compile fetchmail, only the script it produces. Now it will be > our (the main developers) installations of autoconf that produce the > configure script. Hmm, may be I was wrong in believing autoconf running while doing a "make config" (in ESR's releases). Next Monday I'll do a more precise look at logfiles of my last build process. > Except now our installations of automake will also contribute, which makes > things easier for us. That change will not be very noticable to you > unless you pay attention to the makefiles or get the code from the > Subversion repository. O.K., normally I'll not get the sources directly from SVN as long as tarball releases are not too sparse in time.. > > Hi, Rob, many THX for Your quick and enlightening response ! > > You're welcome! :-) > > So I may continue to test (nearly) every release > > as I've done in the past ... :-) > > > > When time permits I may contribute some fixes too in the future. > > Looking forward to it! Hope, I'll have time .. :-) THX, rolf -- Dipl.phys. Rudolf Otto Blättner, D 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany. |
|
From: R.O. B. <com...@bl...> - 2004-06-19 06:01:54
|
Hi, drifting away to OT (sorry), on Sat, 19 Jun 2004 05:07:21 +0200, Matthias Andree <ma...@dt...> wrote: > "R.O. Blättner" <com...@bl...> writes: > > >> SuSE Linux 7.3 has been unmaintained and has unfixed security bugs in > >> kernels and daemons that make it unsuitable for use in networks, even as > >> a client. Upgrade as soon as possible. > > > > Will do so, when I'll be done with all my f*cked graphic cards > > X11 configurations.. :-( > > I don't recall 7.3 details, but the 9.X SuSE versions are rather > comfortable to configure with respect to X11, OTOH, I have cheap brand > cards from the mainstream, Ati R128, Matrox G100/200/550, Intel embedded > graphics and such stuff where drivers for 2D aren't an issue... But ... I'm partly using veeeery old HW, so I was always forced to do a lot of handycraft since I couldn't get full resolution (1280x1024) on all my grafic cards/displays with SuSE/X11 config tools - some cards aren't even supported by newer Xfree releases :-((( > > Next time You don't need do address me personally since > > I'm subscribed to fetchmail-devel too ... > > Then teach your mailer about Mail-Followup-To:, mine will follow your > instructions. :-) Since I'm yet exclusively using the (ancient-plain-commandline-)mail command I've no clue how to tell'em such nice header lines :-)) Sorry being a member of soon beeing extinct race of unconvincable command line hackers .... :-)) THX for suggestions, rolf -- Dipl.phys. Rudolf Otto Blättner, D 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany. |
|
From: Rob F. <rf...@fu...> - 2004-06-19 03:40:42
|
R.O. Blättner wrote: > I'm used to NOT reinstall every new distribution release on my boxes. > > And I usually grapped every new fetchmail tarball from ESR and could > compile it like a charme although I've somtimes not the cutting edge > of generation software installed. You'll still be able to compile the released tarball just fine; you don't need that list of tools to do that. Autoconf and the rest are necessary for going from what's in the code repository to what you see in the release tarball. But after that, none of that stuff is necessary. In other words, if you only work from releases, nothing will change for you. But now we have the ability to get involved in the process before release, and that's where autoconf et al come in. -- ==============================| "A microscope locked in on one point Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> |Never sees what kind of room that it's in" http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind" |
|
From: Matthias A. <ma...@dt...> - 2004-06-19 04:20:42
|
"R.O. Blättner" <com...@bl...> writes: > Hmmpf, does this mean I've to do a reinstall of all those auto* stuff > ? You only need all that stuff if you intend to develop fetchmail. If you're only downloading some .tar.gz, compile and use it, this is not relevant to you. > Currently I'm running SuSE 7.3 with SuSE Linux 7.3 has been unmaintained and has unfixed security bugs in kernels and daemons that make it unsuitable for use in networks, even as a client. Upgrade as soon as possible. > I'm used to NOT reinstall every new distribution release on my boxes. ?` > And I usually grapped every new fetchmail tarball from ESR and could > compile it like a charme although I've somtimes not the cutting edge > of generation software installed. tarballs will continue to work the same way for you, but the whole development is easier for us in the long run. > Question: Isn't it possible to apply the changes in a manner that > enables generation with older auto* tools too ? Nope. Unless you pay, that is. I believe you don't care any longer after the answers given above :) -- Matthias Andree Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X