Re: [Nmh-workers] RC3

[Dan Harkless]

On February 26, 2004, Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> wrote:
> >Yes, it should be nmh-1.1.  In docs/README.developers at the end it has the
> >process one is supposed to follow to make a release.  Doing a 'make nmhdist'
> >creates the directory with the version number and populates it with just the
> >files that are supposed to be there (e.g. we shouldn't be distributing that
> >"autom4te.cache" directory, should we)?
> 
> Sigh.  Probably not, but I decided to include it anyway, since I
> actually haven't figured out what it's there for.  A few people have
> complained about the directory name; I will fix that and put a new tar
> ball up there.

Be sure to also do step 2 from README.developers process (a ChangeLog entry
to mark the release of the version in question).

> >I'm also having problems compiling nmh 1.1 on my Red Hat 9 box:
> >[...]
> 
> Sigh.  It seems Red Had comes with Cyrus SASL 1.5.x; nmh uses the Cyrus-SASL
> 2.x API, which is not compatible.  It would be possible to support both,
> but that's a fair amount of work.

I'm perfectly happy to install the latest Cyrus SASL from source in
/usr/local.  I think we should add something like this to INSTALL (note it
currently doesn't mention --with-cyrus-sasl):

--with-cyrus-sasl=DIR
     Specify the location of the Cyrus SASL headers and libraries to support
     SASL authentication mechanisms.  Note that nmh only supports version
     2.x of the Cyrus SASL API.  See docs/README.SASL for more information.

I was going to suggest adding a specific mention of Red Hat 9, but wait a
sec -- that doesn't appear to be what's going on in this case:

    www-dan> rpm -qa | fgrep -i sasl
    cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.10-4
    cyrus-sasl-2.1.10-4
    cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.10-4
    cyrus-sasl-devel-2.1.10-4

Hmm.  Okay, I see, /usr/include/sasl.h is the 1.5 version of the header, and
/usr/include/sasl/sasl.h is the 2.1 version.  I presume this happens if you
install Cyrus 2.1 with some kind of 1.x compatibility turned on or
something?  Does 2.1 always install sasl.h in a "sasl" subdirectory?  If so,
you could change it from #include <sasl.h> to #include <sasl/sasl.h> to get
around the problem.

Otherwise, some autoconf support will be necessary.

Again, I would look into this more right now but I'm still stuck at work in
the midst of a semi-crisis.  Will try to look at this more tonight.  I think
it would be good to get this sorted before calling 1.1 done.  Sorry I didn't
bleat about this earlier in the Release Candidate process.  Dang busyness...

--
Dan Harkless
http://harkless.org/dan/