Re: [Nmh-workers] Ready to roll a new release?

[pmaydell]

address@hidden wrote:
>Jon Steinhart wrote:
>>> But the patched tarball has problems building on machines that do not
>>> have GNU m4 installed.
>
>>OK, so it sounds like I should wait on a release until this gets resolved.
>
>Feh. I'll have a look at this. (I've also realised that I have access
>to the sourceforge compile farm, so I'll have a go at testing that we
>can compile OK on some other platforms too).

OK, I've done some testing and the results are:

Successful compile:
 Linux/x86 Debian stable (sarge)
 Linux/x86 Fedora FC2
 Solaris/SPARC
 Linux/AMD64
 NetBSD

(I didn't actually test the binaries, just that they could be built.)

Failure:
 OpenBSD/x86: I tried the sourceforge compile farm OpenBSD box, and it
 built OK except that it screwed up on the makefile in the man/ directory
 by trying to build manpages before man.sed (despite the dependency rule
 directing otherwise). It's not a simple GNU-makeism (because NetBSD works
 fine). So I propose to ignore this as a bug in that make unless somebody
 submits a patch and rationale.

I think the problems Igor was having are because the makefile rules for
rerunning autoconf were kicking in (perhaps a clock skew problem between
the machine he ran autoconf on and the one he ran make on?). Anyway, GNU
autoconf requires GNU m4 (no avoiding that) but a proper release tarball
including a configure script should have no problems.

So I think we could go ahead and roll out a point release.

-- PMM