I am not a programmer, I am busy
too and do not have time to read configuration files.
In that case, you need to hire someone to do it for you. Not having the
time is a very poor excuse for asking other people to fix your problems.
We're all busy.
So I should hire a programmer to install all software on my linux system.
That's an asinine response. I have installed and configured many programs on
the linux systems that I am running and NEVER once have I had to read a spec
file to compile and install a software package. I DO read the README, INSTALL
files and the DOCs so that I don't bother people. When things don't work then
I try to get some help from the support mechanisms in place.
I NEVER asked for you or anyone else to FIX my problem. I WROTE TO THIS LIST
TRYING TO SEE IF ANYONE ELSE WAS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM WITH LIBSPF2 AND WHY NO
ONE WAS ANSWERING SUPPORT EMAILS. I wasn't sure why the tests were coming up
with errors. I thought maybe I would check with the "experts". {See Below}
What is going on with libspf2_1.2.5 because I cannot get it to build properly
and I get errors when I run make check?
I have submited bug reports but I have had ZERO, NONE, NADA response. Is
anyone actually working on this package?
What I didn't expect was to get lectured and told to RTFM when I have spent the
better part of two weeks spinning my wheels searching the Internet for posts
about libspf2, joining the spf-devel list, the spf-discuss list, sending emails
because there was a problem with the software and I thought someone might want
to know! So quit giving me the BS about "We're all busy". Of course we are
all busy.
# NOTE THAT THE TEST SUITE IS CURRENTLY BROKEN
# YOU MUST USE rpmbuild --without checks
I did not find a spec file in the file that I downloaded: libspf2-1.2.5.tar.gz.
Do you have code that I don't?
The README states quite clearly that it is new code and should be
treated as such. You were warned and should have been extra cautious
after reading that. Not being a programmer yourself, ask yourself if
running essentially unfinished (unstable) code is what you want (can
handle). If you don't have the time and skills to fiddle around with it,
go with something that's more stable.
Yeah something more stable would be nice. Problem is that since I am new to
SPF and the document that I found on installing milter-greylist showed they
used libspf2. So I tried to follow the installation instructions and failed.
Since there is not much documentation, it took awhile to find that libspf was
stable and libspf2 was not. That's all I needed to know. Even a suggestion
that libspf or even libspf-alt would be a better choice over libspf2 would have
been helpful. Instead of talking down to people that are new, you might
actually try not to be so rude and be more helpful.
Gary Faith
spf+discuss(_at_)de-korte(_dot_)org 12/30/2005 4:34 pm >>>
Why would I look INSIDE the spec file?
Because you should never, ever use a spec file before double checking
that it won't cause harm to your system. It is quite possible to totally
wreck a system with a accidentally malformed spec file. Especially since
the spec file was not specifically written for a SuSE system, this must
trigger a warning.
I am not a programmer, I am busy
too and do not have time to read configuration files.
In that case, you need to hire someone to do it for you. Not having the
time is a very poor excuse for asking other people to fix your problems.
We're all busy.
I did read the INSTALL file and the README file. Nowhere in the INSTALL
file and the README file did it state:
# NOTE THAT THE TEST SUITE IS CURRENTLY BROKEN
# YOU MUST USE rpmbuild --without checks
The README states quite clearly that it is new code and should be
treated as such. You were warned and should have been extra cautious
after reading that. Not being a programmer yourself, ask yourself if
running essentially unfinished (unstable) code is what you want (can
handle). If you don't have the time and skills to fiddle around with it,
go with something that's more stable.
Nor did the README file state anything about the tests being broken.
It didn't state many other things to fix either, that's why I mentioned
the TODO file too.
Arjen
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com