I'm on 5.2.0 on Archlinux, and 4.9.3 on Gentoo (but I'm pretty
sure I'm using the ~arch dev gcc on Gentoo, rather than stable.
Either way, both work great. :)
Yep, I haven't had any problem so I just stick with it. :)
Thursday September 10 2015 at 09:52, you wrote to Alan Ianson:
I'm a little uncomfortable with 0.50 because the author hasn't
released it.
That's a concern of mine as well. (Tried contacting him a
while back about that and other things, but have never received a
reply...)
I've been using v0.50 for well over a year now without any problems.
On 09/10/15, Rj Clay said the following...
Do you know if there are any issues compiling it with versions
like gcc 5?
Not sure. I'm using gcc 4.8.2 on slackware atm. slackware-current is
4.9.3 so it may be a while before I get to see 5.. :)
Not sure. I'm using gcc 4.8.2 on slackware atm. slackware-current is
4.9.3 so it may be a while before I get to see 5.. :)
The default gcc for Debian Testing ('stretch') has transitioned to GCC 5 (v5.2.1, currently), so I'll be seeing how that goes once I get past more of the build warnings..
I've been using v0.50 for well over a year now without any problems.
I don't doubt it but I generally prefer to use released versions for debian packaging. OHOH; it's easy enough to create patches from changes that the author made, so I'll be seeing those will take care of the build errors after being added to the debian packageing...
I couldn't get all of the patches to apply properly, so I've created
a snapshot archive from the most recent commit in the author's GIT
repo and will be updating the package with that (unless he releases
v0.50 soonish, in which case I'll use that...).
Hello, Rj.
Sunday September 20 2015 at 11:08, you wrote to me:
I couldn't get all of the patches to apply properly, so I've created
a snapshot archive from the most recent commit in the author's GIT
repo and will be updating the package with that (unless he releases
v0.50 soonish, in which case I'll use that...).
From what I understand from the last time I talked to him (which was quite som
time ago), he had no plans on making another release and figured that anyone
who wanted to use it could "roll their own". Robert Wolfe recompiled v0.50 fo
Win32/Win64. I may go ahead and hatch out Robert's recompile in my CH-WARE filebone to let people know that such a creature exists although it is available with a web search if you use the right keywords.
I haven't seen the Win32/Win64 version though...
I haven't seen the Win32/Win64 version though...
It's on your website. I have it here. Just have to look for it again on your
website because it was in an odd place.
From what I understand from the last time I talked to him (which was quite s
time ago), he had no plans on making another release and figured that anyone
who wanted to use it could "roll their own". Robert Wolfe recompiled v0.50
Win32/Win64. I may go ahead and hatch out Robert's recompile in my CH-WARE filebone to let people know that such a creature exists although it is available with a web search if you use the right keywords.
haha... ok, I'll check it out...
haha... ok, I'll check it out...
http://www.filegate.net/win_fdn/win_comm/
What the FILE_ID.DIZ doesn't say that it requires an existing install of MultiMail 0.49 first.
Hi Sean,
haha... ok, I'll check it out...
http://www.filegate.net/win_fdn/win_comm/
What the FILE_ID.DIZ doesn't say that it requires an existing install of ->> MultiMail 0.49 first.
What the FILE_ID.DIZ doesn't say that it requires an existing install of ->> MultiMail 0.49 first.
Actually this is incorrect. It autocreated config files if they don't exist. MultiMail always has. If they exist then they are used.
Actually this is incorrect. It autocreated config files if they don't ->exist.
MultiMail always has. If they exist then they are used.
It's been quite a long time since I've used MM.. so thank you for mentioning ->that.
Actually this is incorrect. It autocreated config files if they don't exist. MultiMail always has. If they exist then they are used.
Hello, ROBERT.
Tuesday September 22 2015 at 09:19, you wrote to Janis Kracht:
Actually this is incorrect. It autocreated config files if they don't exist. MultiMail always has. If they exist then they are used.
If you want the rest of the files, such as UNZIP and ZIP (if you don't want to
hunt those down yourself) as well as the color config files, you do need 0.49.
What I'll do is create a full release and put it out so that way no one need ->be
confused. The joys of open source. :)
I couldn't get all of the patches to apply properly, so I've created
a snapshot archive from the most recent commit in the author's GIT
repo and will be updating the package with that (unless he releases
v0.50 soonish, in which case I'll use that...).
From what I understand from the last time I talked to him (which was quite some time ago), he had no plans on making another release and figured that anyone who wanted to use it could "roll their own".
Not sure. I'm using gcc 4.8.2 on slackware atm. slackware-current is 4.9.3 so it may be a while before I get to see 5.. :)
Is that like.. slackware stable or something?
I'm on 5.2.0 on Archlinux, and 4.9.3 on Gentoo (but I'm pretty sure
I'm using the ~arch dev gcc on Gentoo, rather than stable.
Either way, both work great. :)
Sysop: | digital man |
---|---|
Location: | Riverside County, California |
Users: | 1,046 |
Nodes: | 17 (0 / 17) |
Uptime: | 29:22:10 |
Calls: | 501,838 |
Calls today: | 8 |
Files: | 104,425 |
D/L today: |
667 files (157M bytes) |
Messages: | 300,027 |
Posted today: | 4 |