Re: [Pan-devel] Re: Patches to Pan 0.132 for Fedora 9/GCC 4.3.0

[Jeremy Bennett]

On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 22:45 +0000, Duncan wrote:

> Um... After posting that I realized it no doubt comes across to others as 
> it does to me on second reading... rather more harshly than intended.
> 
> Therefore, I apologize.

Hi Duncan,

No problem.

> It may be old news here, but you obviously didn't know that, or that 
> 0.133 was already patched for gcc 4.3, or you'd have not gone to the 
> trouble of creating a patch against 0.132.  I'm not personally a coder 
> altho I can read code well enough to do trivial patches on occasion.  
> None-the-less, it's far easier to rely on others to post the patches and 
> to help test them =:^) than to create them myself, and I really am 
> grateful to those who do post them.
> 
> So thanks... even if someone else did get there sometime ahead of you.  
> It is to folks that post such patches that I am indebted, given that I'm 
> running a full gcc-4.3 compiled system today.
> 
> That said, as I suggested in the previous post, it really does save work 
> to check both the current version (upstream, not just on your 
> distribution) and the upstream bug database, before doing the work 
> yourself.  If it's a patch to make something work against a newer version 
> of <whatever>, unless you are getting to it within days or weeks after 
> release of that newer version, chances are really good you won't have to 
> do the work yourself, as someone else has already done it. =;^)

Glad to try to do my bit, even it if was fruitless on this occasion.
Better luck next time.

I thought I was patching against the latest beta shown on the download
page: 0.132. Missed on the bugs page, because I didn't check for closed
bugs (oops).

  http://pan.rebelbase.com/download/

I see now the main page says 0.133, but the download page is where most
people will check for advice on what to download :-)

One piece of feedback - explanation on the version numbering would be
useful. Versions 0.132/0.133 don't appear in Bugzilla.

> Meanwhile, all that time you save by checking to see if it's already 
> done, you can put into developing patches for so-far missing 
> functionality, such as, say, posting attachments, or my favorite not-yet-
> implemented-feature, scoring on headers such as NNTP-Posting-Host that 
> aren't in the overviews. =:^)
> 

It's a great piece of software - keep up the good work. However my
interests lie elsewhere. I just made a quick fix so the software would
build for me and posted back what I'd done in case it was useful.

ATB,


Jeremy

-- 
Tel:      +44 (1202) 416955
Cell:     +44 (7970) 676050
SkypeID: jeremybennett
Email:   address@hidden
Web:     www.embecosm.com