On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 05:56:11PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:28:31AM +0100, Marcel Telka wrote: > > 6780832 Add SASL support to mutt > > 6796795 copy text from mutt in gnome-terminal to other application is > > adding spaces > > 6804425 Mutt doesn't have header cache support > > 6805664 Add GSS-API support to mutt > > 6903750 mutt fails to read MH-style mail dirs > > 6934512 Envelope is not redrawn in compose mode after return from the > > message edit > > > > The webrev is available at: > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~aragorn/6780832-mutt-sasl/ > > - Would it be better to patch configure.ac instead of configure?
When I would patch configure.ac the configure needs to be either patched too or regenerated. Regeneration on the fly needs some extra tools like autoconf. Patching of both configure.ac and configure would technically end in very similar situation as I have now where I patched the configure only. During the build nobody cares about the configure.ac content. So I preferred the simplest and less error prone way. > > - re: 6796795 > > I believe mutt writes those extra spaces as a workaround for when > mutt's bg color does not match the terminal's bg color. IIRC there > are other fixes or workarounds for this problem, but I can't find the > links at the moment. > > Can you please test that using white/light foreground color on > black/dark foreground color? I tested both old mutt and the new one with different color settings of mutt and terminal and in all cases the color output from both mutts was exactly the same. The only difference were extra spaces with the old mutt. > > - re: 6805664 > > Technically it should be possible to use SASL/GSSAPI without linking > with libgss at all. Can you confirm that mutt can / cannot do > SASL/GSSAPI just by configuring it with --with-sasl but without > --with-gss? I'll test this later. > > - re: 6903750 and 6934512 > > Is this set of patches in the HEAD? Might it be better to just > update to a newer version of mutt? CR 6903750: All of these three patches are upstream in HEAD. They are making mh.c in our mutt in sync with the upstream mh.c in HEAD. CR 6934512: AFAIK no. I just reported the issue upstream yesterday with the patch I propose for OpenSolaris: http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3393 Considering the usage of updated mutt sources in sfwnv: We use latest released mutt sources - 1.5.20. There is an option to use the mercurial trunk but this would lead to situation where we will have a source tarball in the gate which was never released and it is also not possible to download it from the internet. I consider this as a nightmare for the mutt maintainer :-). The selecive patching for annoying bugs until the new version of the mutt is released seems to be the best way for me. > > - Makefile.sfw, depend and prototype_com files look good. Thank you. Your review is really appreciated. -- Marcel Telka RPE, Systems
