> > SUBDIR += snapshot,sidebar,compressed,sasl
can't you guys see how retarded this is ?
--
Mathieu Sauve-Frankel
Stuart Henderson [2007-07-26, 12:10:40]:
> On 2007/07/26 05:57, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> > I'm leaning towards the twiddling of mutt/Makefile and afterwards we can
> > debate the fine points of to flavor or not to flavor .. as it is now,
> > flavor combinations people use regularly are not being buil
On 2007/07/26 05:57, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> I'm leaning towards the twiddling of mutt/Makefile and afterwards we can
> debate the fine points of to flavor or not to flavor .. as it is now,
> flavor combinations people use regularly are not being built. That is
> the major impetus behind collapsing
I'm leaning towards the twiddling of mutt/Makefile and afterwards we can
debate the fine points of to flavor or not to flavor .. as it is now,
flavor combinations people use regularly are not being built. That is
the major impetus behind collapsing compressed and sidebar into the main
mutt build.
Mike Erdely [2007-07-25, 12:43:05]:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:39:00PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > Having read steven's post, I think he has a valid point though.
> > How about rolling the two FLAVORs into 'with_patches' if it's
> > desirable to reduce the number of FLAVORs?
>
> Or go the
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 09:28:33AM -0500, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> So, anybody have _any_ comments?
>
> I don't see why this would hurt, because these flavors add functionality
> that is not enabled by default, one must add .muttrc entries to enable
> them. These also (as Brad points out) do n
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:43:05PM -0400, Mike Erdely wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:39:00PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > Having read steven's post, I think he has a valid point though.
> > How about rolling the two FLAVORs into 'with_patches' if it's
> > desirable to reduce the number o
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:39:00PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Having read steven's post, I think he has a valid point though.
> How about rolling the two FLAVORs into 'with_patches' if it's
> desirable to reduce the number of FLAVORs?
Or go the other way. Maybe the default "FLAVOR" have the
On 2007/07/25 11:17, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> You only loose mail if you muck with compressed files. If the 2nd MUA had
> the ability to muck with compressed files, it would face similar delimas as
> mutt does. The only other MUA I'm aware of that accesses compressed mbox
> files is dovecot, which
You only loose mail if you muck with compressed files. If the 2nd MUA had
the ability to muck with compressed files, it would face similar delimas as
mutt does. The only other MUA I'm aware of that accesses compressed mbox
files is dovecot, which has a plugin not enabled by default that only
perm
Interesting point.
If you wish to keep the flavors separate, I vote for doing this to the
mutt/Makefile then:
SUBDIR += stable
SUBDIR += stable,compressed
SUBDIR += snapshot
SUBDIR += snapshot,sasl
SUBDIR += snapshot,sidebar,compressed
SUBDIR += snapshot,sidebar,comp
On 2007/07/25 09:59, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> Taken in context, I think this is more than safe to put in because the user
> has to be pretty far into utilizing/enabling the compressed folder behavior
> of mutt before mail being lost is even a remote possibility.
I'm not so sure; Muttrc is complex an
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 09:40:05 Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2007/07/25 09:28, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> > I don't see why this would hurt, because these flavors add functionality
> > that is not enabled by default, one must add .muttrc entries to enable
> > them. These also (as Brad points out) d
Todd T. Fries [2007-07-25, 09:28:33]:
> So, anybody have _any_ comments?
>
> I don't see why this would hurt, because these flavors add functionality
> that is not enabled by default, one must add .muttrc entries to enable
> them. These also (as Brad points out) do not alter the dependencies of
>
I'm in favor of integrating the 'compressed' and 'sidebar' flavors by
default. These are useful, at least for me, and if I was to stop using
them I'm quite happy with disabling them in my mutt configuration
file. Since they do not alter dependencies for the port, I see no
reason not to include th
On 2007/07/25 09:28, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> I don't see why this would hurt, because these flavors add functionality
> that is not enabled by default, one must add .muttrc entries to enable
> them. These also (as Brad points out) do not alter the dependencies of
> mutt in any way.
I'm happy with
So, anybody have _any_ comments?
I don't see why this would hurt, because these flavors add functionality
that is not enabled by default, one must add .muttrc entries to enable
them. These also (as Brad points out) do not alter the dependencies of
mutt in any way.
I'd like to hear comments, but
Here is a diff based on a suggestion Todd had and that is to
integrate the compressed and sidebar FLAVORs by default, as
they do not introduce any new external dependencies. As well
as a little cleanup. Todd has tested that the various
combinations of FLAVORs currently in the port build Ok.
Commen
18 matches
Mail list logo
