On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:22 AM, David Bremner <da...@tethera.net> wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> I don't see how this patch could be fixed properly easily, and it was >> labeled as a hack, and I didn't like it in the first place anyway, so >> I'm going to revert it by tomorrow if I don't hear any good reason not >> to. > > I think this highlights the need for at least a minimal test suite for > the ruby
Yeap, I thought the same. > I do plan on a bug fix release, to fix an annoying emacs interface bug > if nothing else. I'd rather see a fix/revert coordinated with Ali in his > role as ruby bindings maintainer. Well, sure, if possible that would be best. But I doubt the ruby bindings maintainer would complain about making the Ruby bindings work again :) Worst-case scenario we would end up with what we had before. > FWIW, the previous situation of linking with the installed version of > notmuch sounds somewhat broken as well, although obviously preferable to > not working at all. That would be only if there was installed version of notmuch, which some people don't have (e.g. me). Either way, to fix that particular problem we don't need to link to the static library, we can just the right CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, in fact, I wonder how is it that it's not working properly; AFAIK the linker and compiler would use first the headers and libraries found in these flags, and only as a fallback use the system ones, so if anybody has managed to compile before (I have) the headers and libraries would be in some -I/-L path. I could try to investigate, but at the moment I still see no reason not to revert. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch