Hey there I never got any response from the list about my Mutt problem, so I had to *think*... ;-P Removed the rpm Went to mutt.org and got the tarball, extracted and read up on the README/INSTALL files. So next I did; ./configure --with-imap --with-sasl which barfed, telling me it couldn't find the sasl lib. So investigating I found out that the sasl lib that comes with 8.2 is sasl2. ./configure --with-imap --with-sasl2 completed, no errors. Installed with 'checkinstall' (first time I've tried *that*) which built and installed the rpm for me. All very nice, and Mutt now works... so I'm happy ;) But I wonder: Why wouldn't the SuSE rpm come with the sasl2 option compiled in? I mean I don't see sasl (1) on the disks anywhere... The other thing I'm curious about is: I was forced to set up Kmail until I had Mutt back. During that time (yesterday) I noticed that Kmail is *significantly* faster in getting the headers from my Imap mailboxes, than Mutt is. I always thought the slowness I was seeing was because the server was slow. Anyone got any ideas a) Why? b) How to fix it? TIA Jon Clausen -- If we can't be free, at least we can be cheap!
* Jon Clausen (dsl23212@vip.cybercity.dk) [030504 04:21]:
But I wonder:
Why wouldn't the SuSE rpm come with the sasl2 option compiled in? I mean I don't see sasl (1) on the disks anywhere...
It does use sasl2, see the spec file. The 8.1 package used sasl. -- -ckm
On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 02:30:17PM -0700, Christopher Mahmood wrote:
* Jon Clausen (dsl23212@vip.cybercity.dk) [030504 04:21]:
But I wonder:
Why wouldn't the SuSE rpm come with the sasl2 option compiled in? I mean I don't see sasl (1) on the disks anywhere...
It does use sasl2, see the spec file. The 8.1 package used sasl.
Hmm. Well if sasl2 is used, then there must be something else in the rpm that doesn't like my setup... I'll have a look at the spec file. Fact remains that shortly after I posted the 'Fixed Mutt...' msg, I ran an online update which updated my self compiled rpm with build 220, and after that Mutt was back at hanging on authentication. :-P So I went and 'checkinstalled' once more, and Mutt works. So there. As an aside, how do I tell YOU to leave that rpm untouched? I would have thought that the padlock was YOU's way of telling me that it regocnized this rpm as something it shouldn't update? TIA Jon Clausen -- If we can't be free, at least we can be cheap!
The 03.05.05 at 06:48, Jon Clausen wrote:
I would have thought that the padlock was YOU's way of telling me that it regocnized this rpm as something it shouldn't update?
Change your release or build number to 999 (directory name), make and checkinstall. By the way, you didn't need to run checkinstall, you could reinstall your own freshly made rpm, that was saved to somewhere in /usr/src/package/RPM -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 02:33:37PM +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The 03.05.05 at 06:48, Jon Clausen wrote:
I would have thought that the padlock was YOU's way of telling me that it regocnized this rpm as something it shouldn't update?
Change your release or build number to 999 (directory name), make and checkinstall. By the way, you didn't need to run checkinstall, you could reinstall your own freshly made rpm, that was saved to somewhere in /usr/src/package/RPM
Well... One good reason to checkinstall again, was precisesly that: I changed the build to 666 ;) I guess next I should try to let YOU have it's way, and see if it honours TNOTB... I mean, so long as the build is higher than any available patch it *ought* to 'win', right? Evenso, it seems more like a workaround... to me a padlock means "locked" period. (?) *Anyway* I'm gonna install the src.rpm for Mutt now, and have a look at the spec file, to see what's different than my own build... or wait... that thread about extracting files from rpms, does that apply to src rpms too? Cheers, Jon Clausen -- If we can't be free, at least we can be cheap!
Op maandag 5 mei 2003 22:06, schreef Jon Clausen:
spec file, to see what's different than my own build... or wait... that thread about extracting files from rpms, does that apply to src rpms too?
yes -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless
The 03.05.05 at 22:06, Jon Clausen wrote:
Well... One good reason to checkinstall again, was precisesly that: I changed the build to 666 ;)
Ah! :-)
I guess next I should try to let YOU have it's way, and see if it honours TNOTB... I mean, so long as the build is higher than any available patch it *ought* to 'win', right?
Yes, it should. I have used that trick before. Normally Suse does not update rpm's version for a suse version. But when you change the suse version then your rpm will be lower version than the new version and will be replced - ugh, I'm not explaining myself too well, am I? O:-) Ok, I mean that it will be honored till you upgrade the distro.
Evenso, it seems more like a workaround... to me a padlock means "locked" period. (?)
Do you mean to say that the padlock or taboo setting, which did not work in suse 8.1, is not working either in suse 8.2? :-O Too bad :-( -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:17:14AM +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
changed the build to 666 ;)
Ah! :-)
Indeed ;)
... I mean, so long as the build is higher than any available patch it *ought* to 'win', right?
Yes, it should.
Cool...
I have used that trick before. Normally Suse does not update rpm's version for a suse version. But when you change the suse version then your rpm will be lower version than the new version and will be replced - ugh, I'm not explaining myself too well, am I? O:-)
Idunno... it's not too bad... reminded me a little of: http://www.nightattheopera.net/contract.html ;D
Ok, I mean that it will be honored till you upgrade the distro.
Or I figure out what *really* is the matter, and... well whereever that might lead...
Evenso, it seems more like a workaround... to me a padlock means "locked" period. (?)
Do you mean to say that the padlock or taboo setting, which did not work in suse 8.1, is not working either in suse 8.2? :-O
Too bad :-(
Yeah... I thought that *got* fixed in 8.1, though? Oh well, now at least I know to look out for it :-P Another question: Do you guys see my From: correctly? I don't, and haven't since I introduced folder-hooks in my .muttrc, in order to switch identity when replying to mail in my band-folder... (which happened a couple of days *before* I installed 8.2 and hence *should* be unrelated to the sasl-problem) Cheers, Jon Clausen -- If we can't be free, at least we can be cheap!
The 03.05.06 at 18:36, Jon Clausen wrote: [This email only answered direct, not to the list, to reduce clutter on list]
be replced - ugh, I'm not explaining myself too well, am I? O:-)
Idunno... it's not too bad... reminded me a little of:
http://www.nightattheopera.net/contract.html
;D
I guess I should go to bed earlier X'-)
Another question:
Do you guys see my From: correctly? I don't, and haven't since I introduced folder-hooks in my .muttrc, in order to switch identity when replying to mail in my band-folder... (which happened a couple of days *before* I installed 8.2 and hence *should* be unrelated to the sasl-problem)
I dunno what it should be; what I see is:
From: Jon Clausen
But I can't help you with mutt, I mostly use pine. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:59:51AM +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The 03.05.06 at 18:36, Jon Clausen wrote:
[This email only answered direct, not to the list, to reduce clutter on list]
Hmmm
I guess I should go to bed earlier X'-)
Could be... ;)
Another question:
I dunno what it should be; what I see is:
From: Jon Clausen
The thing is the way that Mutt shows *my* address. No big deal. Evidently I screwed up something i my .muttrc... I have a closer look at it. Let's just close this thread. Cheers, Jon Clausen -- If we can't be free, at least we can be cheap!
participants (4)
-
Carlos E. R. -
Christopher Mahmood -
Jon Clausen -
Richard Bos