Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-09 Thread Michal Soltys
Udo Rader wrote: Michal Soltys wrote: Timo Sirainen wrote: http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig - If mail_chroot is set, don't fail at startup in dump-capability. Now whenever a system user (using passwd

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-08 Thread Michal Soltys
Timo Sirainen wrote: http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig - If mail_chroot is set, don't fail at startup in dump-capability. Now whenever a system user (using passwd passdb/userdb) is trying to read the mail,

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-08 Thread Udo Rader
Michal Soltys wrote: Timo Sirainen wrote: http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig - If mail_chroot is set, don't fail at startup in dump-capability. Now whenever a system user (using passwd passdb/userdb) is trying

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-07 Thread Frank Cusack
On February 7, 2009 2:19:59 AM -0500 Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote: On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: for (i = j = 0; removed this warning, and removed my doubts :-) Should be for (i = (j = 0); a = b = ... is not legal, although gcc does accept it. Really? I've seen

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-07 Thread Brad
On Saturday 07 February 2009 04:02:56 Frank Cusack wrote: Well now, there's lot of code you might see which isn't correct, e.g. the very common #!/bin/sh but the code is actually a bash script. Being someone that has to fix this stuff I see A LOT of people improperly writting bash scripts and

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-07 Thread Dave McGuire
On Feb 7, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Brad wrote: On Saturday 07 February 2009 04:02:56 Frank Cusack wrote: Well now, there's lot of code you might see which isn't correct, e.g. the very common #!/bin/sh but the code is actually a bash script. Being someone that has to fix this stuff I see A LOT of

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-06 Thread Frank Cusack
On February 5, 2009 9:59:10 PM +0100 Peter Lindgren pe...@norrskenkonsult.com wrote: maildir-sync-index.c:295: warning: `j' might be used uninitialized in this function In function maildir_sync_mail_keywords, j is assumed to be initialized to 0 I think. It is used in line 339 in the for

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-06 Thread Frank Cusack
On February 5, 2009 4:14:24 PM -0500 Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote: On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 21:59 +0100, Peter Lindgren wrote: There is a similar warning for mailbox-list-fs-iter.c, but as far as I can tell the warning is unjustified? mailbox-list-fs-iter.c:483: warning: `real_path' might be

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-06 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:48 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: On February 5, 2009 4:14:24 PM -0500 Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote: On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 21:59 +0100, Peter Lindgren wrote: There is a similar warning for mailbox-list-fs-iter.c, but as far as I can tell the warning is unjustified?

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-06 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: for (i = j = 0; removed this warning, and removed my doubts :-) Should be for (i = (j = 0); a = b = ... is not legal, although gcc does accept it. Really? I've seen a=b=c like code for a long time. But I can't say exactly where C99

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-06 Thread Jack Bailey
On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: for (i = j = 0; removed this warning, and removed my doubts :-) Should be for (i = (j = 0); a = b = ... is not legal, although gcc does accept it. Really? I've seen a=b=c like code for a long time. But I can't say exactly where C99

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released - killall crash

2009-02-05 Thread Bruce Bodger
On Feb 3, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote: http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig Just FYI, ONLY SINCE UPGRADING TO 1.1.11 from 1.1.10, a 'killall dovecot' yields this... Feb 5 07:59:23 G520X2 dovecot: Killed

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released (managesieve updated)

2009-02-05 Thread Stephan Bosch
Timo Sirainen wrote: http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig I've refreshed the ManageSieve patch for the new release: http://www.rename-it.nl/dovecot/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11-managesieve-0.10.5.diff.gz

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-05 Thread Peter Lindgren
Timo Sirainen skrev: Hopefully this v1.1 release will last a few months. Builing on OpenBSD 4.4 (which has an ancient compiler, now I know), I got some warnings. There is one warning not related to this compiler's pointer handling which is worth considering I think:

Re: [Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-05 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 21:59 +0100, Peter Lindgren wrote: Timo Sirainen skrev: Hopefully this v1.1 release will last a few months. Builing on OpenBSD 4.4 (which has an ancient compiler, now I know), I got some warnings. There is one warning not related to this compiler's pointer

[Dovecot] v1.1.11 released

2009-02-03 Thread Timo Sirainen
http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz http://dovecot.org/releases/1.1/dovecot-1.1.11.tar.gz.sig Hopefully this v1.1 release will last a few months. - IMAP: PERMANENTFLAGS list didn't contain \*, causing some clients not to save keywords. - dbox: