On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 09:19:18AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Erik van der Meulen wrote: > > 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: > > > > > 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? > > I put SA on my potato box yesterday (and then joined this list). No > problems -- I grabbed the .tgz, ran the perl Makefile.PL, noted that > I needed a gdm lib, found the right package, apt-get'd it (yes, the > Potato libgdm-dev works nicely) and ran the make again. All clean. >
You don't need libgdb-dev. You just need libc. (At least on Debian) -- Duncan Findlay _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
