On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:52:52PM +0100, Erik van der Meulen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 09:27:29 -0500, Greg Ward wrote:
> > Finally, it *doesn't matter* -- I bet that using Perl's linker flags for > > spamc is unnecessary and irrelevant. So here's my third and final > > Makefile.PL patch, which should fix the problem instead of just trying > > to figure out what's wrong: > > --- Makefile.PL.orig Wed Feb 13 09:20:46 2002 > > +++ Makefile.PL Wed Feb 13 09:26:31 2002 > > @@ -110,4 +110,3 @@ > > spamd/spamc: spamd/spamc.c > > - $(CFCC) $(CFCCFLAGS) $(CFOPTIMIZE) spamd/spamc.c \ > > - -o $@ $(CFLDFLAGS) $(CFLIBS) > > + $(CFCC) $(CFCCFLAGS) $(CFOPTIMIZE) spamd/spamc.c -o $@ > Dear all - thanks for the great support. I have (manually) applied the > above patch and it works! I have spamassassin running on my Potato box. Dear list - the above discussion was the result of my attempts to install Spamassassin 2.01 on Debian 2.2. From what I understood the above flags where not required for spamc and caused the installation to break on my system. Today I tried to upgrade to version 2.11 and found that the includes are still in the Makefile.PL. For me not too much of a problem because I manually removed them. Now I wonder if there is a specific reason for those includes to remain there, or is there some way I can file a request to have them removed in the distribution, as they do not seem to be needed? Thanks a lot! -- Erik van der Meulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
