Differences mutt 1.5.7i - mutt 1.5.8i - Mutt

* Tobias Mummert <teergrube@phreaker.net> [2005-02-13]:
> same procedure as always:
> [New in mutt 1.5.8i]
> 6.3.106 menu_context
> 6.3.151 pgp_auto_decode
> 6.3.269 use_idn
> 6.3.270 use_ipv6

thanks, again!

now... who will write some examples to show
the newly acquired power of those options?
any takers?

Sven

Sven Guckes <usenet@guckes.net> wrote in news:2005-02-14T23-37-
10@guckes.net:

> now... who will write some examples to show
> the newly acquired power of those options?
> any takers?

I'm waiting until it builds properly.
mutt_socket.c wants "open64" defined but
mutt_ssl.c wants "open". Solaris defines
these equivalently but the supplied .h files
break things. A friend on AIX (non-ssl) built
it but found many problems in using it.
I'm sticking with 1.5.7 for now. It works.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:44:12 +0000 (UTC), Warner D. Brigham wrote:

> I'm waiting until it builds properly. mutt_socket.c wants "open64" defined
> but mutt_ssl.c wants "open". Solaris defines these equivalently but the
> supplied .h files break things. A friend on AIX (non-ssl) built it but
> found many problems in using it. I'm sticking with 1.5.7 for now. It
> works.

Have you made sure to pass this on to the mutt-dev mailing list, so it can
be fixed?

--
Paul

Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

* Paul Walker <usenet@blacksun.org.uk> [2005-02-15]:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:44:12 +0000 (UTC), Warner D. Brigham wrote:
>> I'm waiting until it builds properly. mutt_socket.c wants
>> "open64" defined but mutt_ssl.c wants "open". Solaris
>> defines these equivalently but the supplied .h files break
>> things. A friend on AIX (non-ssl) built it but found many
>> problems in using it. I'm sticking with 1.5.7 for now.
>> It works.
>
> Have you made sure to pass this on to the
> mutt-dev mailing list, so it can be fixed?

"wot? no new bug tracking system?" ;-)

Sven

On 15 Feb 2005 10:53:25 GMT, Sven Guckes wrote:

>> Have you made sure to pass this on to the mutt-dev mailing list, so it
>> can be fixed?
> "wot? no new bug tracking system?" ;-)

That's still being worked on; looks like it'll probably end up being GNATS,
though, like GnuPG.

--
Paul

"... the police should turn on them with water cannons!"
"You want to turn me into a border collie? ... I must have
misheard that?" -- someone, Sofi, at Netizen

* Paul Walker <usenet@blacksun.org.uk> [2005-02-15]:
> On 15 Feb 2005 10:53:25 GMT, Sven Guckes wrote:
>
>>> Have you made sure to pass this on to the mutt-dev mailing list, so it
>>> can be fixed?
>> "wot? no new bug tracking system?" ;-)
>
> That's still being worked on; looks like it'll
> probably end up being GNATS, though, like GnuPG.

by the time all developers will have a working
bug tracking system and know how to work with it
mutt-ng will have a lot more patches, i think.
however, the version to "win" probably will be
the one which offers more documentation for users.
is there a bug tracking system which writes docs?

Sven

--
Sven Guckes http://www.fosdem.org/2005/ sig-fosdem @guckes.net
Schedule: http://www.fosdem.org/index/schedule Sat+Sun Feb 25+26 2005
Sun 27 Feb 12:00-17:00 http://wiki.fosdem.org/tiki-index.ph...LightningTalks
Sun 27 Feb 16:00-16:15 mutt development - taking it to the next generation.
mutt is the mailer which "sucks less" - but its development has stalled.
this is a call for participation in bug fixing and adding some features.

On 16 Feb 2005 01:28:45 GMT, Sven Guckes wrote:

> is there a bug tracking system which writes docs?

I don't think so, but if you send documentation patches to the list they'll
probably get applied. I look forward to seeing them!

> mutt is the mailer which "sucks less" - but its development has stalled.

Heh. I'm not sure that's accurate any more; check the number of patches that
have gone in recently. ;-)

--
Paul

* Paul Walker <usenet@blacksun.org.uk>:
> On 16 Feb 2005 01:28:45 GMT, Sven Guckes wrote:

> > mutt is the mailer which "sucks less" - but its development has
> > stalled.

> Heh. I'm not sure that's accurate any more; check the number of
> patches that have gone in recently. ;-)

Yeah, the fear of a fork (though I think it's too late already) seems to
have had a positive effect for mutt(-ng) and users.

bye, Rocco
--
:wq!

* Sven Guckes <usenet@guckes.net>:

> mutt-ng will have a lot more patches, i think. however, the version
> to "win" probably will be the one which offers more documentation for
> users.

When looking at the manual, user pages, samples configurations, etc. I
don't think it's a matter of documentation quantity. IMHO it's also not
really the quality because most of the questions arising could be
trivialy solved by actually reading documentation available.

If there's an appropriate measure of "to win", then I think it'll be the
one version actively moving the implementation into the direction the
users want.

bye, Rocco
--
:wq!