On 16/01/2019 20:21, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 18:26, Mike Tubby via Exim-users
> <exim-users@??? <mailto:exim-users@exim.org>> wrote:
>
>
> On 15/01/2019 10:21, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> > On 15/01/2019 09:54, Mike Tubby via Exim-users wrote:
> >> Can someone point me in the right direction?
> > Presumably your build didn't actually include SPF. Check
> > the "Support for" line from "exim -bV". If it's not there,
> > check you have a consistent set of source files and that
> > you didn't try and build on top of some previous version.
>
> I did build on a previous version that had:
>
> EXPERIMENTAL_SPF=yes
>
> In Local/Makefile
>
> I changed it to:
>
> SUPPORT_SPF=yes
>
> but it didn't work possibly because I just did a "make; make install"
> ... I have now performed:
>
> make clean
> make makefile
> make
> make install
>
> and it fixed it.
>
>
> Great!
>
>
> However, I noticed two other issues:
>
>
> *1. Double increment of build numbers*
>
> I only get even-numbered compile numbers due to what looks like a
> double
> increment:
>
> root@relay1:~/exim-4.91# make install
> /bin/sh scripts/source_checks
> `Makefile' is up to date.
>
> make[1]: Entering directory '/home/mike/exim-4.91/build-Linux-x86_64'
> *>>> version 4.91 #9
> >>> version 4.91 #10*
>
>
> I have always never bothered about the compile numbers. Are they
> important in a way??
>
It would be nice if the compile number incremented once each time the
code was built ... its sort of what its for ;-)
As it is currently running 'make' or 'make install' seems to perform a
double increment, well at least it does for me :-!
>
> >>> exicyclog script built
> >>> exinext script built
> >>> exiwhat script built
>
> *2. Warning for unused return in usr1_handler*
>
> GCC compiler generates a warning for unsied return codes in
> usr1_handler:
>
> gcc exim.c
> exim.c: In function ‘usr1_handler’:
> exim.c:242:1: warning: ignoring return value of ‘write’, declared
> with
> attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
> (void)write(fd, process_info, process_info_len);
> ^
> gcc expand.c
>
> I have created a fix and sent a separate email with a proposed patch.
>
>
> Aha. Why don't you try the 4.92RC and see if the same issue exists,
> and give a patch
> as well. I am saying that because we already started looking ahead -
> towards 4.92.
>
Yep, relay2.thorcom.net is now running 4.92-RC4 and the same issue exists.
Below is a more compact version of the hack, erm I mean 'patch' ;-)
root@relay2:~/exim-4.92-RC4/src# diff exim.c-orig exim.c
247,250c247,252
< if (fd < 0) return;
<
< (void)write(fd, process_info, process_info_len);
< (void)close(fd);
---
> if (fd > 0)
> {
> /* hack to avoid GCC warning for unused result */
> ssize_t dummy1 = write(fd, process_info, process_info_len);
> int dummy2 = close(fd);
> }
Regards
Mike
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Odhiambo WASHINGTON,
> Nairobi,KE
> +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223
> "Oh, the cruft.", grep ^[^#] :-)
