Getting the following segfault with 306635c2 on Fedora 12. Seems to
be happening with any 'tag:' search that returns results. For
example, 'notmuch search tag:inbox' and 'notmuch search tag:unread'
segfault but 'notmuch search tag:nosuchtag', 'notmuch search
subject:logwatch' and 'notmuch search
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Keith Packard wrote:
>
>> This enables us to search for archived mails later
>
> I think you can just use 'not tag:inbox' as 'archived' really just means
> 'doesn't have the inbox tag'.
That resulted in an error for me:
$ notmuch search not tag:inbox
A Xapian exc
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:31:53 -0600, "Jeffrey C. Ollie"
> wrote:
>> I prefere managing all of the software on my system with RPM, so I
>> came up with a quick spec file for building RPMS. ?Once notmuch
>> settles down and I continue using it I
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Karl Wiberg wrote:
>
> Since these patterns are specific to a user rather than a project,
> shouldn't they go in the user's ignore file (~/.gitignore) rather than
> the project's?
If every user could be counted on to put them in their personal
.gitignore probably
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Adrian Perez de Castro
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:00:10 -0600, Jeffrey wrote:
>
>> Getting the following segfault with 306635c2 on Fedora 12. ?Seems to
>> be happening with any 'tag:' search that returns results. ?For
>> example, 'notmuch search tag:inbox' and
oaded operator to not call it when the iterator
> is equal to the value returned by termlist_end ().
>
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:23:15 -0600, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>> I straced some of the crashes, and the last file that was read before
>> the crash was a malformed message. ?I&
Found the same problem on my own, only to minutes later catch up on
the backlog of patches in my email and find this!
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 3:13 AM, James Rowe wrote:
> "Those keys which have several values should have a semicolon as the trailing
> character."
> ?-- http://standards.freedesktop
The SCons build files are not meant to require emacs. If I've messed
something up and emacs is somehow required I would consider that a bug
and would try to fix it.
As far as availability, I'm sure that SCons is one yum or apt-get or
away. The only
people that would face more than a minor inco
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
> I can do a CMake build if that's desirable. ?While I prefer it to SCons,
> particularly when config/build times are an issue and you want to have
> several active build trees, it is a significantly heavier dependency.
> With SCons, you can dum
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> But I'm afraid I really don't want to switch away from just using (GNU)
> make for the actual compilation.
>
> I don't know anything about scons, but if you can use it to write a
> python script that just does the configuration step, (outputti
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:11:03 +0200, Dirk-Jan C. Binnema gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> - ? ?write(2, msg, sizeof(msg)-1);
>> + ? ?if (write(2, msg, sizeof(msg)-1) < 0) {
>> + ? ? ? ? /* ignore...*/
>> + ? ?}
>
> I don't like the gratuitous conditional
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Alexander Botero-Lowry
wrote:
>
> This way of detecting the tags seems ok, but I think it would be nicer
> if it could be done even more deterministically. :) One idea that be
> neat is to have a --format=sexp for notmuch search, which exports sexps
> (probably al
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Scott Robinson wrote:
>
> == Shared Library
>
> I have modified the build to output a shared library. It's a small change
> relying on libtool.
>
> However, the archives indicate Carl dislikes libtool?
Ugh, please, let's not go down the autoconf/automake/libtool
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Scott Robinson wrote:
>
> To accomplish this, I used the cJSON library sans parsing logic.
I wasn't familiar with cJSON so I went over to take a look. I haven't
really examined the code, but I really don't like the fact that you
are expected to copy the cJSON co
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Scott Robinson wrote:
>
> As the json work is a bit more substantial, is it preferable to start a
> [PATCH]
> thread or link to a git repo?
Probably a new [PATCH] thread so that the changes can be discussed.
--
Jeff Ollie
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Scott Robinson wrote:
>
> I selected cJSON because it was simple for integration. Given how libsha1.c is
> included in lib/, I figured adding a depedency wouldn't be very popular.
Oh, I noticed libsha1.c as well, and it bugs the heck out of me. I
just haven't go
I'm having some problems importing my mail. I've got quite a bit
stored up, and some of them I'm sure are quite large. After several
hours I get the following. Is notmuch running out of memory on me?
$ ./notmuch new
Found 328184 total files.
Warning: Unexpected extra parts of multipart/signed.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Mikhail Gusarov
wrote:
> Twas brillig at 21:28:03 27.11.2009 UTC-06 when jeff at ocjtech.us did gyre
> and gimble:
>
> ?JCO> Instead of including a private implementation of the SHA1 hash
>
> xserver went this road, and now it has
> --with-sha1=libc|libmd|libgcryp
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Ingmar Vanhassel wrote:
>
> Most distributions have a rather strict policy to use system libraries
> over internal copies.
Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
Debian:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-emb
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> But yes, we need a test suite.
I have zero experience, but Check[1] looks interesting.
> Oh, and we'll also need to deal with remaining glib usage inside of
> notmuch, (and inside of GMime as well), before we can do good testing
> for memor
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:09:56 -0600, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>>
>> $ ./notmuch new
>> Found 328184 total files.
>
> That's certainly not the largest number of messages we've seen indexed
> successfully by
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> Have you actually *looked* at the implementation of libsha1.c that we
> have in notmuch? I can't say with 100% certainty that it's free of any
> buffer overruns, but I can see that it's not doing any memory allocation
> nor network communicat
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 03:33:14PM -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
>> Run "make check" from the toplevel directory to build and run the
>> checks.
>
> I think it's usually standard to call the tests with "make test", yes?
> Is there a
I'm having some problems importing my mail. I've got quite a bit
stored up, and some of them I'm sure are quite large. After several
hours I get the following. Is notmuch running out of memory on me?
$ ./notmuch new
Found 328184 total files.
Warning: Unexpected extra parts of multipart/signed.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Mikhail Gusarov
wrote:
> Twas brillig at 21:28:03 27.11.2009 UTC-06 when j...@ocjtech.us did gyre and
> gimble:
>
> JCO> Instead of including a private implementation of the SHA1 hash
>
> xserver went this road, and now it has
> --with-sha1=libc|libmd|libgcrypt|l
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Ingmar Vanhassel wrote:
>
> Most distributions have a rather strict policy to use system libraries
> over internal copies.
Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
Debian:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-emb
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> But yes, we need a test suite.
I have zero experience, but Check[1] looks interesting.
> Oh, and we'll also need to deal with remaining glib usage inside of
> notmuch, (and inside of GMime as well), before we can do good testing
> for memor
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> Have you actually *looked* at the implementation of libsha1.c that we
> have in notmuch? I can't say with 100% certainty that it's free of any
> buffer overruns, but I can see that it's not doing any memory allocation
> nor network communicat
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 03:33:14PM -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
>> Run "make check" from the toplevel directory to build and run the
>> checks.
>
> I think it's usually standard to call the tests with "make test", yes?
> Is there a
29 matches
Mail list logo