DCC version 1.3.47/2.3.47 released

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:37:13AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> Perhaps the MIME fixes in the DCC client code are significant.  The
> graphs of the DCC servers of the organziations that installed the new
> version yesterday or last night are showing better spam detection rates.

Thanks, Vernon, that's good news.  I've been seeing lower rejection
rates lately.  I just thought that the spammers had given up on us.

> > From: Gary Mills 
> 
> > It's a difference in philosophy.
> 
> It looks more like difference in levels of confusion.  Even without the
> gcc vs. Sun Studio (or whatever it's called) conflicts in compiler
> options, Sun's zillions of -xarch settings show a fundamental lack of
> clarity of intentions.  Or perhaps internal conflicts on whether
> the costs of 64-bit pointers and numbers are worth their benefits.

That confusion has just been cleared up, in the upcoming release of
Sun's compilers:

	http://blogs.sun.com/quenelle/entry/goodbye_xarch_amd64_hello_m64

They're free, by the way.

> I've long since consciously chosen to not worry about making the DCC
> ./configure stuff friendly to cross compiling.  I think cross compiling
> is too hard.  I'm glad if it works, but make no promises.

With Solaris, it's common practice to compile software on a Solaris 8
machine but run it on a Solaris 11 machine.  Sun guarantees upward
compatibility.  This is the recommended way of producing binary
software bundles.

> I think in the next release I'll
>   - only test -m64, etc when there -m32, -m64, nad -xarch are not in the
>       environment CFLAGS
>   - change the test program that ./configure compiles and runs to fail if
>       sizeof(off_t) and size(void*) are not equal to 8.

I built that next release today.  It built cleanly, with no change to
my normal configure command.

-- 
-Gary Mills-    -Unix Support-    -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-