On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Rick Byers wrote:

: However, our imap package is out of date (imap4.2 I believe), and the
: pine-4.05 package comes with imap4.4.

: Would it just make more sense to have an imapd package that uses the pine
: distribution (in place, or as well as the existing uw-imap package) - sort
: of like the pico package?  Or should the uw-imap package just be updated.

The uw-imap pkg should be updated, as imap-4.4 (with more bugfixes than in
the Pine bundle) is available separately.  I'll volunteer to do that this
week.

: The reason I'm asking is because I tried to build both.  On my 386 NAT
: box, buidling the pine imapd took only a few minutes (above what was
: already done for pine).  Building the uw-imap package took several hours
: before I cancelled it.  Seems sort of wastefull....

The uw-imap pkg builds its own shared c-client library in order to reduce
what is inside imapd, ipop2d, and ipop3d.  I considered making use of this
for the Pine pkg, but that seemed even more wasteful, as you'd have to fetch
both the imap tarball *and* the pine tarball.  The compromise was to build
Pine/Pico as it does, and ignore its own imapd.

: P.S. I assumed tech-pkg was for "techincal" issues, which is isn't.
: Please let me know if this message should have gone there...

Actually, it would have fit just fine.  tech-pkg is for whatever you want to
discuss, and this does fall into technical anyway....

-- 
-- Todd Vierling (Personal tv@pobox.com; Bus. todd_vierling@xn.xerox.com)