Thanks for your explaination.
Yes, you are right. I am not a beginner of Qmail+ldap even I didn't know any
C programming.

I tried to fix the problem of Makefile.rej before Although it failed. But I
will keep on to study.
Maybe neglect my Previous mail.

I am very sorry for making trouble to you.

Thanks!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Turbo Fredriksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 7:29 PM
Subject: Micro PATCH HOWTO (Was: About latest qmail-control-patch)


> Quoting "Anthony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Because I am not a programmer, so I don't know how to correct it.
>
> Sorry, I'm not trying to be elitist on purpose and for the sole purpose
> on beeing elitist, but i SERIOSLY believe that this (Qmail+LDAP) is not
> for the 'beginner' (choose any meaning on that you like). You WILL need
> some programming knowledge on this, and using 'external patches' to ANY
> software (on a UNIX like OS that is - patches in the Windows world isn't
> called 'patches', they are called 'service packs' :) requires you to know
> a little on how they are built up...
>
> So please, save yourself (not only you personaly Anthony) some trouble,
> read the manpages on 'diff' and on 'patch'. Then take the time to look
> in a patch - reviewing what happened to the file both BEFORE and AFTER
> the patch is applied...
>
>
> Example one:
> diff -urwN build-tree.old/qmail-1.03/FILES build-tree/qmail-1.03/FILES
> --- build-tree.old/qmail-1.03/FILES Tue Nov 26 16:35:10 2002
> +++ build-tree/qmail-1.03/FILES Tue Nov 26 16:36:57 2002
> @@ -481,3 +481,4 @@
>  qmail-todo.c
>  byte_repl.c
>  rbl.c
> +rbl.h
>
> This part say: add the line 'rbl.h' AFTER the line that reads 'rbl.c'
which
> is after the line that reads 'qmail-todo.c'. Oh, and the file to apply
this
> to is called 'FILES' (exact path: 'build-tree/qmail-1.03/FILES', the OLD
> file is (was) called 'build-tree.old/qmail-1.03/FILES').
>
> Example two:
> diff -urwN build-tree.old/qmail-1.03/QLDAPTODO
build-tree/qmail-1.03/QLDAPTODO
> --- build-tree.old/qmail-1.03/QLDAPTODO Tue Nov 26 16:35:10 2002
> +++ build-tree/qmail-1.03/QLDAPTODO Tue Nov 26 16:36:57 2002
> @@ -21,9 +21,10 @@
>  ongoing - The big qmail-ldap picture
>  ongoing - full code review by a third person
>  planned - splitting the patch into smaller separate pieces
> -planned - make it possible to have locals and rcpthosts in ldap
> -          and perhaps also the rules for the tcpserver (certs?)
>
> +planned - If a control value (for example 'ldapbasedn') exists
> +          multiple time in the DB (which is not allowed) both of
> +          them is used.
>
>  ALSO ON THE LIST: (priority list ???)
>  - improve the RBL handling (tagging, types, etc) (done)
>
> Slightly more complicated, it reads: Remove the two lines that
> reads:
> ----- s n i p -----
> planned - make it possible to have locals and rcpthosts in ldap
>           and perhaps also the rules for the tcpserver (certs?)
> ----- s n i p -----
>
> Instead add the lines (three):
> ----- s n i p -----
> planned - If a control value (for example 'ldapbasedn') exists
>           multiple time in the DB (which is not allowed) both of
>           them is used.
> ----- s n i p -----
>
> The line that reads
> ----- s n i p -----
>  - improve the RBL handling (tagging, types, etc) (done)
> ----- s n i p -----
>
> Have 'nothing' to do with the patch, it's just there to give reference
> to WHERE to add the patch (even though it 'starts' with a '-', this
> character isn't the FIRST character, but the second).
>
> It's the very first (!) character you have to look out for, that's what
> tells you what to do (remove => '-', add => '+').
>
>
> I know that I'll still gett naggings about rejects, people don't read
> documentation, but at least I can say to my self 'I already answered
> that question - go look in the archives).
>
> I'll TRY (!) to take care and double check for rejects, but I've tried
> that in the past, and people STILL (!) get rejects - the add other
> patches between the Qmail-LDAP patch and my Qmail-LDAP/Controls, so my
> patch is STILL at fault (which it really isn't).
> --
> 747 FBI assassination Clinton cracking FSF jihad supercomputer Marxist
> Khaddafi Qaddafi toluene security bomb counter-intelligence
> [See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this]
>


Reply via email to