[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Where are we at for 1.7.1?
From: |
Paul Fox |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Where are we at for 1.7.1? |
Date: |
Fri, 02 Feb 2018 23:31:50 -0500 |
ken wrote:
> Alright, so, question time ... do we want to fix the broken test for 1.7.1?
> We've already decided, I believe, that iconv will be manitory going forward;
> the only problem (AFAIK) is that the tests for when we don't have iconv are
> broken.
i vote for release-noting that support for the absence of iconv is
deprecated, and releasing. along with a suggestion to the package
maintainers to add a hard dependency on iconv.
paul
=----------------------
paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 7.9 degrees)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] slocal(1) and its dbm_open(3) Use., (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] slocal(1) and its dbm_open(3) Use., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] slocal(1) and its dbm_open(3) Use., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] slocal(1) and its dbm_open(3) Use., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] slocal(1) and its dbm_open(3) Use., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] slocal(1) and its dbm_open(3) Use., P Vix, 2018/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] slocal(1) and its dbm_open(3) Use., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/03
Re: [Nmh-workers] Where are we at for 1.7.1?, Todd C. Miller, 2018/02/01
Re: [Nmh-workers] Where are we at for 1.7.1?, Andy Bradford, 2018/02/01
Re: [Nmh-workers] Where are we at for 1.7.1?, Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/03