On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
>> 
>>> On Saturday 26 June 2004 05:38, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
>>>> I see:
>>>> 
>>>> htodd@allison:/usr/src/usr.sbin > cvs status Makefile
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> File: Makefile          Status: Up-to-date
>>>> 
>>>>     Working revision:    1.191
>>>>     Repository revision: 1.191   /cvsroot/src/usr.sbin/Makefile,v
>>>>     Sticky Tag:          (none)
>>>>     Sticky Date:         (none)
>>>>     Sticky Options:      (none)
>>>> 
>>>> And itojun swears it's up to date.
>>> 
>>> What exactly do you think is wrong here?
>> 
>> Sorry, I was going to add to my email but off it went.
>> 
>> Spampd is in the flist, but doesn't build. It isn't in my Makefile, but
>> Itojun implied that it was.
>> 
>> The directory for spampd is there, however.
>
> Er, I'm sorry. I'm really being too terse. Big software release this
> week (twice even).
>
> current hasn't built since the middle of the day. Basically, I had
> problems with spampd and the man pages not building nor installing, and
> the flist said they should be.
>
> I asked itojun about it, and he told me that I needed the latest
> Makefile. Using anoncvs (tried again after he emailed me) I saw nothing
> new. I think v1.191 is probably one previous to the "correct" version
> that builds.
>
> And so I'm just asking about anoncvs because that's all I can do,
> really.
>
> I think I'll just add spampd to the Makefile myself for now.

Er, spamdb even.

-- 
Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd@twofifty.com
BSEE(6/86) + BSChem(3/95) + BAEnglish(8/95) + MSCS(8/03) + $2.50 = latte