Over a dozen sites mirror our archives, usually by grabbing our published
mbox for the list. As a result, we cannot control how they publish the
email addresses contained within. It is also important for those mboxes to
retain the email addresses for archival purposes, and so those third-party
systems can allow proper replies (hopefully, only by humans, but as you've
discovered... they are not all perfect).
Sorry for any inconvenience, but please don't blame us. We do try to
respect your privacy in our own web archive system.
On Jun 18, 2012 5:10 AM, <svn_at_feb17.org> wrote:
> Less than 2 months after using this mailing list I've started getting spam
> to the custom email address I used to post here. I think it's terrible
> practice to openly publish email addresses in easily harvestable form.
> I'll be /dev/nulling this address and unsubscribing. I hope you could
> reconsider that policy,
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:05:52PM -0700, daz wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:58:10AM -0500, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Philip Martin
> > > <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > > > svn_at_feb17.org writes:
> > > >
> > > >> A little more information on this. I have probably rebuilt svn
> about 20 times tonight from scratch, with
> > Thanks to everyone who contributed useful clues on this. Using the
> current code tree and rebuilding with different versions and combinations
> of libraries I narrowed the problem down to the apr version. Either the
> build of my earlier apr 1.3.9 or the version itself was the problem. The
> test suite was super helpful and the explanation about XFAIL vs FAIL. I
> have a build using apr 1.4.6 that passes all the tests it should pass and
> more importantly actually works. It might be helpful to print a reminder
> at the end of the default make step suggesting running the tests if this is
> a common problem. There are a lot of dependencies and some of them seem to
> be a bit finicky.
> > Thanks!
> > Darren
Received on 2012-06-18 10:21:31 CEST