Re: [hypermail] Does anyone use mail.c

From: Peter C. McCluskey <pcm_at_rahul.net_at_hypermail-project.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:10:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20030212191017.05A352B548_at_mauve-new.rahul.net>

 kent_at_hypermail.org (kent landfield) writes:
>Peter C. McCluskey writes:
>> b) there's a slight chance that there are people using it who would install
>> the disabled version if it's built by default, but if it's not built would
>> continue using the old version without realizing the risks.
>
>Another good point... But, currently it is not installed. I didn't change
>that so I'm not sure how long it has been that way. I did check in the
>hypermail-2.0.0 version and it was not installed then. In this case, people
>are not using anywhere near the current version today. That was one of the
>reasons I considered removing it entirely.

 Even if "make install" never did anything with it, my point remains roughly unchanged. People may look for whatever binaries get produced and manually copy them to the appropriate place.
 If you're worried about maintaining the code in mail.c, I'd suggest a simple way to eliminate the need for further maintainence would be to reduce the program to a main that just contains a printf.

>We could add a section to the 'make install' that ran a script that checked
>to see if the old 'cgi-bin/mail' program exists and warn the user of the
>problems... Just a thought...

 Check where? All the user's web server cgi directories?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter McCluskey          | 
http://www.rahul.net/pcm | 

Received on Wed 12 Feb 2003 09:06:48 PM GMT