On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 03:57:30PM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 07:57:43AM +0200, Rene Kita wrote: > > I implemented this for w3m a few days ago and was wondering if this > > might be of interest for mutt. The idea is that all build configurations > > live in a shell script rather then being split over multiple build > > manifests. This allows to test all configurations locally by just > > calling the script. It also avoid having to write the same config over > > and over again for every manifest. > > This sounds reasonable. > > > Note that this currently breaks the CI as I found out, that the > > 'original' task was different depending on the image we were building > > on. E.g. on Alpine we use --with-sasl while on OpenBSD we used > > --without-sasl. > > Is this something you need help resolving? i.e., Do we just need to > update the required packages, or is there a bug to resolve?
Na, it was just an easy sunday-morning-coffee-edit until that point and I wanted to hear if this would be accepted before pouring in real work. > > Please bikeshed the script name 'build' and if it should be placed in > > the root directory. I kept the name from w3m, but there it is placed > > in the test directory which makes it more obvious what the intend is. > > :D. I don't want to dictate, since you've put the effort in. My only > comment is that "build" sounds like something an ordinary user might try > running after checking out the git repos. That's what I thought. > So I would vote for moving the > script somewhere (under .builds if that is legal), and/or renaming it to > something less tempting to run, such as ci-build. Having it in .builds makes sense and we avoid the naming-is-hard part, I'll do that. > > If there is interest I will continue to fix the build problems and unify > > the build configurations. > > Absolutely, from my point of view. I appreciate your work on this! Going back to work then. Though I'm going on vacation in a few days, so might take a while to finish that.
