Re: [Pan-users] Upgrade to Natty Narwhall, still problems

[Orlok Nosferatu]

> Wait! You tried to /upgrade/ from 0.133 to 0.123? ???

Yes!!! Onwards to go backwards. 

Actually, no, your right. I still had 0.133, and now sport 0.134. Alas, the 
problem persists, a bug has been submitted. Thanks for the help.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Duncan
> Sent: 05/11/11 03:30 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Pan-users] Upgrade to Natty Narwhall, still problems
> 
> Orlok Nosferatu posted on Wed, 11 May 2011 12:07:26 +0000 as excerpted:
> 
> > Aww. When I checked Pan I saw it still had the 0.133 version. So I
> > started to upgrade by downloading and extracting the pan-0.123 package.
> > When I executed ./configure I saw I had some missing packages, so I
> > downloaded, extracted and ran the ./configure's of glib-2.24.1 and
> > gmime-2.4.23 too. Checking the config.log's I saw "configure: exit 0" at
> > the end of each (glib, gmime and pan) log file. So that should be good,
> > shouldn't it? Why does my pan still say it is version 0.133 (when I look
> > in the help menu followed by an 'about' menu choice)? A 'pan --version'
> > gave me the same answer (eg 'Pan 0.133').
> 
> Wait! You tried to /upgrade/ from 0.133 to 0.123? ???
> 
> I hope you meant 0.134!
> 
> Meanwhile, I see you did the ./configure, but you don't mention doing the 
> following make, make install. You /did/ do the make, make install, 
> right? (Note that you can normally do the build as a normal user, but the 
> install step will need to be done as root.)
> 
> Finally, IDR what pan's default is, but many source-builds default to 
> installing in /usr/local (so /usr/local/bin for an executable like pan, 
> or /usr/local/lib(64) for a library) if one hasn't fed ./configure 
> additional settings. Running ./configure --help (in the dir you unpacked 
> the sources into, naturally) should spit out a bunch of information about 
> the available options you can feed it.
> 
> If you did install it to /usr/local/bin/pan as I expect, then which one 
> would actually be run would depend on the order of paths in the PATH 
> environmental variable set for whatever you're running it from, if running 
> it from the command-line, but if you use the normal menu launcher method, 
> the menu launcher is very likely coded to the system pan's installation 
> path, /usr/bin/pan or the like, so you'd get that one.
> 
> Unless of course you specifically uninstall the existing system pan 
> package, so you only have the compiled version. Then you'd probably get 
> it when run from the command line, wherever it installed by default, and 
> it might or might not appear on your launch menu.
> 
> -- 
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pan-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users