[Discussion of patches put inline]
On 19 Oct 2009, at 12:52, Simon Arlott wrote:
> I'm making up a git-based ebuild for exim, so I can test 4.70 and
> keep up with changes between releases, and
> Gentoo have patches that appear to have been around since 4.14 that
> still haven't gone upstream.
>
> These are minor build fixes which should be applied:
> http://mirror.its.uidaho.edu/pub/gentoo-portage/mail-mta/exim/files/exim-4.14-tail.patch
This is changing 'tail -1 ...' to 'tail -n 1 ...'
I suspect that the first form will work on just about anything, but
the latter will fail on certain Unix variants (probably old sysv forms).
On that basis I do not wish to take that patch which will make a
cosmetic improvement to some OSes and break others.
> http://mirror.its.uidaho.edu/pub/gentoo-portage/mail-mta/exim/files/exim-4.69-r1.boolean_redefine_protect.152706.patch
> Bug: http://bugs.gentoo.org/152706
More inclined to take this - it surrounds our TRUE/FALSE defs with
#ifdefs - although much fun may be had on a system where TRUE and
FALSE are differently defined to expectations...
> I'm not sure what this is doing:
> http://mirror.its.uidaho.edu/pub/gentoo-portage/mail-mta/exim/files/exim-4.43-r2-localscan_dlopen.patch
This allows local_scan function to be dlopen - ie dynamically loaded,
rather than needing it to be compiled in. It has the same downsides
as plugins in general in secure programs. Dave Woodhouse I believe
originated the code and hopefully he can comment on any portability
and non-linux implications?
> This is a default config change that may/may not be appropriate to
> include:
> http://mirror.its.uidaho.edu/pub/gentoo-portage/mail-mta/exim/files/exim-4.69-r1.27021.patch
> Bug: http://bugs.gentoo.org/27021
Thats a distribution specific. As is the maildir one below.
> http://mirror.its.uidaho.edu/pub/gentoo-portage/mail-mta/exim/files/exim-4.20-maildir.patch
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
