On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 17:10, Eelco van Beek - IC&S wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> You have all means to be confused, i was talking nosence. Ofcourse,
> you've created the autoconf code and supplied all patches for it. My
> autoconf guy was actually working on re-ordering the code (everything
> in prope
Hi Ryan,
I guess I'm really confused. I wasn't aware you had an autoconf guy,
which is why I submitted the autoconf stuff that is currently in 1.0
and
cvs Since then I've submitted a couple of patches which would have
allowed dbmail to use either the old style build, or the autoconf buil
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 14:05, Eelco van Beek - IC&S wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> We tried to incorporate autoconf in 1.0 but unfortunatly our autoconf
> guy is on a 6 month leave and Roel and I are working on other stuff. To
> fill in for the miss we incorporated a build script which should be
> suffi
The autoconf fixes should have went in before 1.0, as it is now the
autconf stuff shipped with 1.0 doesn't coexist well with non autoconf
builds and is partially broken. They definately need to go in botht he
1.0 and 1.1 branches. They really should have went in at 1.0 or had
autoconf removed be
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 12:49, Eelco van Beek - IC&S wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> Some patches are not yet incorporated in dbmail 1.0. That doesn't mean
> that they are not good enough. We tried to compile a stable package
> which should be quick easy to setup. All new features (and a lot of
> patc
Hi everybody,
Some patches are not yet incorporated in dbmail 1.0. That doesn't mean
that they are not good enough. We tried to compile a stable package
which should be quick easy to setup. All new features (and a lot of
patches) will be added to the new 1.1 branch.
1.0 will only be used for
