Re: [Nmh-workers] How're we doing on nmh-1.2-RC1?

[pmaydell]

Josh Bressers wrote:
>> 
>> I've been having a think about the way mhn.defaults is created, however,
>> and now believe the shell script should be replaced. I think it makes more
>> sense to search for programs with the configure script, and use
>> the autoconf stuff to create mhn.defaults.
>
>I question if this is the right thing to do.  For example, when these
>packages get built for Fedora Extras, as little as possible is installed in
>the buildroot.  That would result in a nearly empty mhn.defaults.

I agree; I think putting checks in the configure script for properties
that may change at runtime is dubious -- this is why I don't like the
current 'broken vi' test.

The other thing I was thinking of trying to fix for 1.2 was the
configure detection of libdb. I'll have another go at that tonight.
(Unfortunately it has the usual downside of messing with configure.in --
you can't be certain it won't mess up some obscure configuration somehow.)

-- PMM