On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:15:40AM +0100, Marcel Telka wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 05:56:11PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > - 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.
Huh? We don't have autoconf installed on build servers? > > 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. Will you submit this patch upstream? > 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 :-). Of course, I wouldn't suggest it. Nico --
