Hi John, On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:41:40PM +0300, John Torjo wrote:
Hi Jens,
not sure whether you are also interested in my feedback as you ignored already two mails from me with simple patches. Nevertheless I attached my mail again ...
Sorry 'bout that
ah, great to see you replying so fast ...
- it's not my fault
It is!
- though I should have replied to the mailing list.
The idea is I definitely took your comments into account - and you'll see that if you take a look at the latest sources.
Great, thanks!
Here's the problem (when I replied to your email):
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
jensseidel@users.sf.net SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<jensseidel@users.sf.net>: host mail.sourceforge.net [66.35.250.206]: 550-Postmaster verification failed while checking <john.code@torjo.com> 550-Called: 72.52.140.12 550-Sent: RCPT TO:<postmaster@torjo.com> 550-Response: 550 No such email address 550-Several RFCs state that you are required to have a postmaster 550-mailbox for each mail domain. This host does not accept mail 550-from domains whose servers reject the postmaster address.
550 Sender verify failed
Yep, that's a SPAM protection performed by SourceForge. I know about approximately one mail per year failing because of this, maybe there are many more rejected mails. Please create a postmaster mail account on your system! This will fix the problem on your side (just adding "postmaster: root" to /etc/aliases should be sufficient?).
Here's the original message:
On this list I recently posted a few comments for you, as I failed in the past to contact you (and considered the project death). See http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2007/09/30970.php
I've seen them now - you're right about the levels stuff - I've corrected it in v2. I'm not maintaining v1 since v2 is sooooo much better!
Is v2 already stable enought for daily use?
OK, a few further comments to your new version 2: * The zip archive contains object files. Please remove these.
Sorry 'bout that - I think I've removed them already. Anyway, could you give me the file names, just to make sure I don't miss them in the future?
In lib/logging/tests/: test_multiple_simple_logs.o test_mul_lev_difflogs.o test_mul_lev_samelog.o test_ostream_like.o test_simple_dump_to_cout.o In lib/logging/tests/format/: test_format_write_ts.o test_manip_being_func.o test_manip_w_msgroute.o test_simple_formatter.o The latest zip archive still contains these files (just search for *.o).
* I attached a patch which allows your test code to be compiled by fixing errors and warnings. A single warning remains which I marked in the code in a comment.
Yup, thanks - fixed it.
Will check later whether you was able to remove the last warning :-)
I added a Makefile to simplify the task of compiling. Read it to see the compiler flags I used. Used compiler: $ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ --version g++ (Debian 20070916-1) 4.3.0 20070916 (experimental) [trunk revision 128522]
Thanks for the makefile - unfortunately I can't use it because boost uses jam - so I need to somehow make a jamfile to build the tests :)
Don't worry. It was just for me and I shared it with you to avoid putting the compiler flags into the mail. I prefer Makefiles over jam and will continue using these if possible for simplicity ...
(I update the .zip file only once in a while - like, every 2 weeks or so :) )
OK. I agree that this is sufficient. Jens