On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 09:53:04AM +0100, Marcel Telka wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 07:32:34PM -0500, 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? > > We do. But additional complexity is not good if I can easily avoid it. :-)
Ok, though you might want to ask the SFWNV GKs about that. Personally I think we should patch configure.ac, run autoconf, then ./configure, but don't feel strongly enough about the matter. (My preference results from: a) it's easier to understand and patch configur.ac than configure, b) that's what you'd have to do in order to contribute patches upstream. In this case the patch is already in the head upstream, so there's no harm in patching only ./configure.) > > > > 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? > > Already done http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3392 Thanks, Nico --
