Balsa in Fedora Core

On 07/04/2004 12:17:54 PM, Pawel Salek wrote:
On 06/13/2004 10:54:45 PM, Craig Routledge wrote:
Is it possible to apply the patch within to the stable branch?

I have just commited it - worked fine for me. Translators may need to
update the translations. I think we could do 2.0.18 release anyway just
to publish the small improvements that have been collected in CVS over
the time: I can imagine some reasons to use 2.0.x instead of 2.1.x or
2.2.x series.


There are a few patches in the Fedora RPMS which I'll look at to see if they are valid upstream. Other than that, there is just a single bug at which I'll try my hand at identifying. I'll see if I can help with any of those prior to your doing a 2.0.18 release.

On 07/04/2004 12:21:48 PM, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
If Fedora wants to support GnuPG crypto with balsa (it should!), you
should *really* stick to 2.0.17 (or maybe a new 2.0.18, Pawel, if I have
a look at the Changelog?).  Gmime support of RFC 3156 is somewhat broken,
and (afaik) on balsa's side it doesn't yet work correctly with imap (is
that still true? Apologies if someone fixed it recently). You should also
have a look at the (not officially released) gpgme version 0.9.0 which
fixes some issues, e.g. with revoked keys.

Okay. Fedora does ship with gnupg installed by default, but not gpgme. I'll see if there is a willingness to put that in.

BTW, is there some interest in porting back the ui improvement to 2.0
(popup memus, attachments, image display)? I could do that, but of course
it needs some time.

Thanks for the offer. The new attachment setup would be nice but I suspect it wouldn't be in time for Fedora Core 3, and by FC4 I would think the 2.2 series would be in place. I don't know what other distributions are looking at, and there's always people who grab their packages from the balsa site itself. I don't know what the interest would be there.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]