Alpine 2.10 Released!

[cha...@washington.edu]

Dear Alpine Community,

After four years of the last release of Alpine, and given that the re-
alpine project has not advanced much since then, I am gathering part
of my work in patches for Alpine and releasing version 2.10 of Alpine.
This work is released under the Apache License 2.0. In order to build
you will need OpenSSL 1.0 or above.

Links to the source code and Windows binaries are:

Source Code
http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/patches/alpine-2.10/alpine-2.10.clean.tar.lzma

Windows Binary:
http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/patches/alpine-2.10/windows.zip

Release Main Page
http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/info/alpine.html

This new version includes most of the bug fixes reported in public
forums
to date, as well as new features.

Additions include:

* Quota report for IMAP folders that support it (press the "@"
command in the index screen of such folder).
* Search a folder for the content of any header with the ";" command.
* Foreign characters are decoded correctly in IMAP folder names.
* Question about breaking connection to slow servers includes their
name.
* Internal x-alpine-help: resource locator for sending links to
internal
help.
* OpenSuse: Alpine find location of OpenSSL certificates.
* Cygwin: Alpine builds without need of patch.
* Recognition of proper mime type for docx, xlsx, and pptx files.
* When composing a message, Alpine will create a new thread when the
subject is erased.
* Add support for strong encryption of password file when S/MIME is
built
in.

Bugs that have been addressed include:

* Alpine will close a folder after confirming with user their
intention
and not reopen it.
* Double allocation of memory in Pico.
* Alpine does not give warning of message sent and posted upon
receipt
by email of message posted in newsgroup.
* Handling of STYLE html parameter may make Alpine not display the
content of a message.
* Not recognition of environment variables in some options.
* Not display of login prompt during initial keystrokes.
* justification of long urls breaks them.
* Incorrect New Mail message when envelope is not available.
* Inorrect display of PREFDATE, PREFDATETIME and PREFTIME tokens.
* Crash when resizing the screen after display of LDAP search.
* Crash when redrawing screen while opening a remote folder
collection.
* Infinite loop in scrolltool function during notification of new
mail.
* No repaint of the screen was done when the SMARTDATE token is used
in the index screen after midnight.
* No display of signed and encrypted S/MIME messages.
* Alpine will not build with OpenSSL.
* Crash for double locking in calls to c-client.
* Bad recognition of mime-encoded text may make Alpine not print the
subject of a message.
* Ignore the references header when threading messages
* No update of colors in index screen after update to addressbook.

I will be shifting my development efforts by releasing updates to
Alpine in the future. I have integrated some of the old patches -
mainly bug fixes - and will be adding more in the future, while at the
same time I will need to modify Alpine so I can integrate other
projects in the future.

As an added bonus, there are some new spinners for your amusement
when Alpine takes too long to complete an operation.

In terms of versioning, I intend to number versions so that these do
not collide with the efforts in the re-alpine project. In that way it
will be easy to figure out which software has a bug when it is
reported.

Please test it and let me know any problems that you find with it.

Thank you.

--
Eduardo
http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/

[Holger Marzen]

* On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:08:59 -0800 (PST), cha...@washington.edu wrote:

> After four years of the last release of Alpine, and given that the re-
> alpine project has not advanced much since then, I am gathering part
> of my work in patches for Alpine and releasing version 2.10 of Alpine.
> This work is released under the Apache License 2.0. In order to build
> you will need OpenSSL 1.0 or above.

> Eduardo

Thank you so much Eduardo for your work and your support.

[Holger Marzen]

* On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:08:59 -0800 (PST), cha...@washington.edu wrote:

> Dear Alpine Community,
>
> After four years of the last release of Alpine, and given that the re-
> alpine project has not advanced much since then, I am gathering part
> of my work in patches for Alpine and releasing version 2.10 of Alpine.
> This work is released under the Apache License 2.0. In order to build
> you will need OpenSSL 1.0 or above.
>
> Links to the source code and Windows binaries are:
>
> Source Code
> http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/patches/alpine-2.10/alpine-2.10.clean.tar.lzma

Hi Eduardo,

I encounter the same 3 problems as with re-alpine on my Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.
While processing in the dircetory "alpine":

|libtool: link: gcc -std=gnu99 -g -pthread -g -O2 -o alpine addrbook.o adrbkcmd.o after.o alpine.o arg.o busy.o colorconf.o confscroll.o context.o dispfilt.o flagmaint.o folder.o help.o imap.o init.o kblock.o keymenu.o ldapconf.o listsel.o mailcmd.o mailindx.o mailpart.o mailview.o newuser.o pattern.o pipe.o print.o radio.o remote.o reply.o roleconf.o send.o setup.o signal.o status.o takeaddr.o titlebar.o smime.o newmail.o date.o -lpam -ldl -L/usr/lib -lcrypto ../pico/libpico.a ../pico/osdep/libpicoosd.a ../pith/libpith.a ../pith/osdep/libpithosd.a ../pith/charconv/libpithcc.a osdep/libpineosd.a ../c-client/c-client.a -lldap -ltinfo -llber -lssl -pthread
|../c-client/c-client.a(osdep.o): In function `checkpw_cleanup':
|/usr/src/alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:143: undefined reference to `pam_setcred'
|/usr/src/alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:144: undefined reference to `pam_end'
|../c-client/c-client.a(osdep.o): In function `checkpw':
|/usr/src/alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:163: undefined reference to `pam_start'
|/usr/src/alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:165: undefined reference to `pam_set_item'
|/usr/src/alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:166: undefined reference to `pam_authenticate'
|/usr/src/alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:167: undefined reference to `pam_acct_mgmt'
|/usr/src/alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:168: undefined reference to `pam_setcred'

I can fixed it by appending -lpam

Another error:

|libtool: link: gcc -std=gnu99 -g -pthread -g -O2 -o rpdump rpdump.o -lpam -ldl -L/usr/lib -lcrypto ../pico/libpico.a ../pico/osdep/libpicoosd.a ../pith/libpith.a ../pith/osdep/libpithosd.a ../pith/charconv/libpithcc.a osdep/libpineosd.a ../c-client/c-client.a -lldap -ltinfo -llber -lssl -pthread
|/usr/bin/ld: ../c-client/c-client.a(osdep.o): undefined reference to symbol 'X509_free@@OPENSSL_1.0.0'
|/usr/bin/ld: note: 'X509_free@@OPENSSL_1.0.0' is defined in DSO /usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.6/../../../i386-linux-gnu/libcrypto.so so try adding it to the linker command line
|/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.6/../../../i386-linux-gnu/libcrypto.so: could not read symbols: Invalid operation

It can be fixed by appending -lcrypto -lpam

Another error:

|libtool: link: gcc -std=gnu99 -g -pthread -g -O2 -o rpload rpload.o -lpam -ldl -L/usr/lib -lcrypto ../pico/libpico.a ../pico/osdep/libpicoosd.a ../pith/libpith.a ../pith/osdep/libpithosd.a ../pith/charconv/libpithcc.a osdep/libpineosd.a ../c-client/c-client.a -lldap -ltinfo -llber -lssl -pthread
|/usr/bin/ld: ../c-client/c-client.a(osdep.o): undefined reference to symbol 'X509_free@@OPENSSL_1.0.0'
|/usr/bin/ld: note: 'X509_free@@OPENSSL_1.0.0' is defined in DSO /usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.6/../../../i386-linux-gnu/libcrypto.so so try adding it to the linker command line
|/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.6/../../../i386-linux-gnu/libcrypto.so: could not read symbols: Invalid operation

It can be fixed by appending -lcrypto -lpam


After those 3 additions make completes.

[cha...@washington.edu]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:19:55 AM UTC-7, Holger Marzen wrote:

> I encounter the same 3 problems as with re-alpine on my Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.
>
> While processing in the dircetory "alpine":

Thank you for the report. I do not have a machine that runs ubuntu

Can you send me/post the output of the "configure" command?

Thank you

--
Eduardo
http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/

[Sam]

Thank you very much Eduardo. We have lots of enthusiastic alpine users here and we use it daily.

[mechanic]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 01:15:19 -0800 (PST), Sam wrote:

> Thank you very much Eduardo. We have lots of enthusiastic alpine
> users here and we use it daily.

+1

[dhrede...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:08:59 AM UTC-5, cha...@washington.edu wrote:

>
> After four years of the last release of Alpine, and given that the re-
>
> alpine project has not advanced much since then, I am gathering part
>
> of my work in patches for Alpine and releasing version 2.10 of Alpine.
>
> This work is released under the Apache License 2.0.

Thanks very much! We've been using Pine and Alpine for about 20 years.

Naive questions: Should this become official Alpine? Is there a process whereby this can happen? You seem to have taken one step, in that you call it Alpine 2.10 but getting it distributed from the University of Washington Alpine site would seem to be the next.

Is it in the official SVN repository? The VERSION file there says 2.01.

[cha...@washington.edu]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:55:45 AM UTC-7, dhrede...@gmail.com wrote:


> Naive questions: Should this become official Alpine? Is there a process whereby this can happen? You seem to have taken one step, in that you call it Alpine 2.10 but getting it distributed from the University of Washington Alpine site would seem to be the next.
>
>
>
> Is it in the official SVN repository? The VERSION file there says 2.01.

Thank you for your message. I will try to answer your questions as best as I can.

The University of Washington, as you know, stopped development of Alpine many years ago. At the time, they intended to continue releasing Alpine, and so they would coordinate releases through time, by integrating code contributed by the community.

Later on, it turned out that they changed their mind; they just did not announce it publicly; so they stopped any Alpine development at all. That means, they are not coordinating nor releasing new versions of Alpine. Just to give you an idea, I submitted the new address of my web site so that they updated their information at

http://www.washington.edu/alpine/acquire/non-UW.html

but they did not update it because they are not using their resources to do work in Alpine at all. Alpine development has completely ceased at the University of Washington.

Because of that, submitting this contribution to their site does not serve the purpose of making it "official". In my mind the word "official" only means that one believes that that specific version is the one that will be standard. Today, re-alpine is the standard, because that is what the community decided several years ago. Unfortunately, the project has not evolved into a strong community of developers. It is being maintained so that it will not rust, not so that it will evolve into the next step - whatever that means; there is no vision of where the project will go, other that it will not rust (this observations are made due to conversations that I've had with the re-alpine leader).

I believe it makes sense to keep developing Alpine, I think there is a lot of ground to travel, and have many ideas of what to do in the future. I believe we (the Alpine community) needed a new version, and bug fixes is the minimum that should be released. That is what I did, and I added some new features too. More is coming up the pipe. I am already working on the next version, have one more bug fix, a fresh one, and a few new features, but I will keep working on it for a longer time. First, I need some feedback into what they community wants/expects and how that was satisfied with the last release.

In regards to SVN; since I normally work by myself on this project, I normally do not share my work until it is done - that is the model I have used for more than 10 years already. I know I could create an online project and share the state of development through git. I am just getting into transforming my project into git, so I could start sharing bits online, through git, in the future. That has not happened yet, but it is in my mind, and if the community wants it, I will do so.

In regards to the name "Alpine". This is not a copyrighted name, so I could call the project Alpine. It is easier to call it Alpine for many reasons, including recognition of the community. The University of Washington did not copyright the name so that the continuation could be called Alpine. Unfortunately, the person that created the continuation of Alpine, could not call it like that, since the Alpine name was already taken in sourceforge, so the continuation was called "re-alpine" (reborn Alpine). Given that there is no Alpine continuation (with the same name), that nobody used that name in nearly 4 years, and that the name is not copyrighted, I believe that releasing an new Alpine version makes sense.

Finally, I am surprised that the VERSION file says "2.01", I just downloaded it from the web site and double checked it says "2.10"; would you mind checking again?

[unruh]

On 2013-02-06, cha...@washington.edu <cha...@washington.edu> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:55:45 AM UTC-7, dhrede...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> Naive questions: Should this become official Alpine? Is there a process whereby this can happen? You seem to have taken one step, in that you call it Alpine 2.10 but getting it distributed from the University of Washington Alpine site would seem to be the next.

....
Your response to the above seems to be "I can do what I want". While
perhaps true, it is not really helpful. It is certainly admirable that
you want to keep going and developing Alpine. It would however be
helpful for the community if there were not 12 things running around,
all called Alpine and all different. We already had two separate "hwclock" programs, which
caused no end of confusion.

> In regards to the name "Alpine". This is not a copyrighted name, so I could call the project Alpine. It is easier to call it Alpine for many reasons, including recognition of the community. The University of Washington did not copyright the name so that the continuation could be called Alpine. Unfortunately, the person that created the continuation of Alpine, could not call it like that, since the Alpine name was already taken in sourceforge, so the continuation was called "re-alpine" (reborn Alpine). Given that there is no Alpine continuation (with the same name), that nobody used that name in nearly 4 years, and that the name is not copyrighted, I believe that releasing an new Alpine version makes sense.

Trademark not copyright. a) copyrigth attaches to work as soon as it is
created. It does not require any action on the part of the creator. Thus
IF it were a copyright issue, UW would have the copyright. They do not
need to copyright it. (Note that this is true of much of code in Alpine,
and you have to make sure that comply with the license requirements).

b) But a single word cannot be copyright. It can be trademarked which
does require action on the part of the trademarker.

c) What do you mean "noone used the name in 4 years." I just installed a
brand now version of Linux, and it had a program in it called Alpine.
That name is being continuously used.

>
> Finally, I am surprised that the VERSION file says "2.01", I just downloaded it from the web site and double checked it says "2.10"; would you mind checking again?

I believe he said that version of the one downloaded from the UW site is
2.01, not the one from your site. But since none of your referents exist
it is impossible to know what you mean. "the VErsion file" implies that
there is one single version file. There isn't. "downloaded it" What did
you download. "the web site" There are billions of web sites around the
world. Which one? "checking again". Checking what again?


>
> Thank you.
>

[cha...@washington.edu]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:39:43 PM UTC-7, unruh wrote:

> >> Naive questions: Should this become official Alpine? Is there a process whereby this can happen? You seem to have taken one step, in that you call it Alpine 2.10 but getting it distributed from the University of Washington Alpine site would seem to be the next.

> Your response to the above seems to be "I can do what I want". While
> perhaps true, it is not really helpful. It is certainly admirable that
> you want to keep going and developing Alpine. It would however be
> helpful for the community if there were not 12 things running around,
> all called Alpine and all different. We already had two separate "hwclock" programs, which
> caused no end of confusion.

I am not trying to create confusion, but I do not see any other way forward.

> > In regards to the name "Alpine". This is not a copyrighted name, so I could call the project Alpine. It is easier to call it Alpine for many reasons, including recognition of the community. The University of Washington did not copyright the name so that the continuation could be called Alpine. Unfortunately, the person that created the continuation of Alpine, could not call it like that, since the Alpine name was already taken in sourceforge, so the continuation was called "re-alpine" (reborn Alpine). Given that there is no Alpine continuation (with the same name), that nobody used that name in nearly 4 years, and that the name is not copyrighted, I believe that releasing an new Alpine version makes sense.
>
>
>
> Trademark not copyright. a) copyrigth attaches to work as soon as it is
>
> created. It does not require any action on the part of the creator. Thus
>
> IF it were a copyright issue, UW would have the copyright. They do not
>
> need to copyright it. (Note that this is true of much of code in Alpine,
>
> and you have to make sure that comply with the license requirements).

There is a 2006-2008 University of Washington copyright notice in the code. This is normal. Many projects have copyright by different people/institutions through the years. That is normal.

>
> b) But a single word cannot be copyright. It can be trademarked which
>
> does require action on the part of the trademarker.

ok

> c) What do you mean "noone used the name in 4 years." I just installed a
>
> brand now version of Linux, and it had a program in it called Alpine.
>
> That name is being continuously used.

No one continued Alpine (releasing new versions) using that name, so it does not create confusion I think.

> > Finally, I am surprised that the VERSION file says "2.01", I just downloaded it from the web site and double checked it says "2.10"; would you mind checking again?
>
>
>
> I believe he said that version of the one downloaded from the UW site is
>
> 2.01, not the one from your site. But since none of your referents exist
>
> it is impossible to know what you mean. "the VErsion file" implies that
>
> there is one single version file. There isn't. "downloaded it" What did
>
> you download. "the web site" There are billions of web sites around the
>
> world. Which one? "checking again". Checking what again?

Ok, that explains my confusion. Thank you.

--
Eduardo
http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/

[unruh]

On 2013-02-06, cha...@washington.edu <cha...@washington.edu> wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:39:43 PM UTC-7, unruh wrote:
>
>> >> Naive questions: Should this become official Alpine? Is there a process whereby this can happen? You seem to have taken one step, in that you call it Alpine 2.10 but getting it distributed from the University of Washington Alpine site would seem to be the next.
>
>> Your response to the above seems to be "I can do what I want". While
>> perhaps true, it is not really helpful. It is certainly admirable that
>> you want to keep going and developing Alpine. It would however be
>> helpful for the community if there were not 12 things running around,
>> all called Alpine and all different. We already had two separate "hwclock" programs, which
>> caused no end of confusion.
>
> I am not trying to create confusion, but I do not see any other way forward.

The best way is to get permission from the current people (UW?
reAlpine?) that you take over the code. That way you do not get the
problem of many people fighting in public.

>> Trademark not copyright. a) copyrigth attaches to work as soon as it is
>>
>> created. It does not require any action on the part of the creator. Thus
>>
>> IF it were a copyright issue, UW would have the copyright. They do not
>>
>> need to copyright it. (Note that this is true of much of code in Alpine,
>>
>> and you have to make sure that comply with the license requirements).
>
> There is a 2006-2008 University of Washington copyright notice in the code. This is normal. Many projects have copyright by different people/institutions through the years. That is normal.

Of course. The code IS copyright, and was copyrighted the day it was
created. They are simply notifying you who the copyright holder is, and
whose permission you need to get to distribute their code, or anything
derived from their code.

>
>>
>> b) But a single word cannot be copyright. It can be trademarked which
>>
>> does require action on the part of the trademarker.
>
> ok
>
>
>> c) What do you mean "noone used the name in 4 years." I just installed a
>>
>> brand now version of Linux, and it had a program in it called Alpine.
>>
>> That name is being continuously used.
>
> No one continued Alpine (releasing new versions) using that name, so it does not create confusion I think.

That does not matter. There is a program called Alpine which is being
distributed. You want to distribute a product with the same name. The
question is whether that will cause confusion. If noone else is or has
plans to continue developing the code, your doing so will not cause
confusion. If others do plan on doing so, the two will cause confusion.
So it is best to come to agreement.

[cha...@washington.edu]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:56:00 PM UTC-7, unruh wrote:

> The best way is to get permission from the current people (UW?
>
> reAlpine?) that you take over the code. That way you do not get the
>
> problem of many people fighting in public.

I do not mean to start a fight, nor have I seen one about this.

> Of course. The code IS copyright, and was copyrighted the day it was
>
> created. They are simply notifying you who the copyright holder is, and
>
> whose permission you need to get to distribute their code, or anything
>
> derived from their code.

That is already covered in the license.

--
Eduardo
http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/

[Adam H. Kerman]

unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>On 2013-02-06, cha...@washington.edu <cha...@washington.edu> wrote:
>>On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:55:45 AM UTC-7, dhrede...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>Naive questions: Should this become official Alpine? Is there a
>>>process whereby this can happen? You seem to have taken one step, in
>>>that you call it Alpine 2.10 but getting it distributed from the
>>>University of Washington Alpine site would seem to be the next.
>>>....

>Your response to the above seems to be "I can do what I want". While
>perhaps true, it is not really helpful. It is certainly admirable that
>you want to keep going and developing Alpine. It would however be
>helpful for the community if there were not 12 things running around,
>all called Alpine and all different. We already had two separate
>"hwclock" programs, which
>caused no end of confusion.

I'm confused as to how you counted "12 things running around, all called
Alpine and all different". He told you UWash not only ceased development,
but they ceased providing a cite from which the latest version can be
downloaded. He also told you that little came of Re-Alpine.

So he released a version of Alpine incorporating his patches. Sounds like
he's making a solo effort, and no one else is developing anything.

>c) What do you mean "noone used the name in 4 years." I just installed a
>brand now version of Linux, and it had a program in it called Alpine.
>That name is being continuously used.

He meant what he wrote. Most people do. Alpine 2.0 was released over four
years ago. The name Alpine hasn't been used with subsequent versions,
so Eduardo called his version Alpine 2.10 instead of Eduardo-Alpine 1.0.

>>Finally, I am surprised that the VERSION file says "2.01", I just
>>downloaded it from the web site and double checked it says "2.10"; would
>>you mind checking again?

>I believe he said that version of the one downloaded from the UW site is
>2.01, not the one from your site.

UWash doesn't offer 2.01, just 2.0. ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/alpine/

I believe 2.01 was actually Re-Alpine 2.01, right?

I believe you're spreading confusion and that I'm being seamused here.

[Holger Marzen]

* On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:56:00 GMT, unruh wrote:

> The best way is to get permission from the current people (UW?
> reAlpine?) that you take over the code. That way you do not get the
> problem of many people fighting in public.

UW doesn't put any resources in Alpine, so they won't use any resources
to put the website officially down oder overhaul it to point to
Eduardo's or other people's site.

But you may try to ask them to do that :)

[Jean-Pierre Coulon]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, cha...@washington.edu wrote:

> Finally, I am surprised that the VERSION file says "2.01", I just downloaded
> it from the web site and double checked it says "2.10"; would you mind
> checking again?

The Alpestre image you see when you start Alpine says "2.01".

But thanks! I love Alpine because it ignores htlm instructions like
src=3D"http:<an URL> put by hackers, fischers and spammers!

-- Jean-Pierre Coulon (here "cacas.pam" is what others call "nospam")

[Jean-Pierre Coulon]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, cha...@washington.edu wrote:

> Finally, I am surprised that the VERSION file says "2.01", I just downloaded
> it from the web site and double checked it says "2.10"; would you mind
> checking again?

The header sent by Alpine 2.10 says:

User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (WNT 1266 2009-07-14)

(The date is that of Alpine 2.10)
--
Jean-Pierre Coulon

[Adam H. Kerman]

You mean 2.01?

[Holger Marzen]

2.10

http://www.marzen.de/tmp/alpine_2.10.png

[Jean-Pierre Coulon]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>> The header sent by Alpine 2.10 says:
>
>> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (WNT 1266 2009-07-14)
>
>> (The date is that of Alpine 2.10)
>
> You mean 2.01?

Yes. Sorry!

[maestro...@gmail.com]

Hi, I just wanna say thanks for further developing Alpine: "Thanks!". :-)

[rdca...@gmail.com]

Hi,

I am also trying to build alpine-2.10 in Ubuntu, and I encountered a lot of

error while procesing osdep.c. Some examples are shown below.

/alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:143: undefined reference to `pam_setcred'

../c-client/c-client.a(osdep.o): In function `ssl_server_input_wait':
/alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:1038: undefined reference to `SSL_get_fd'
/alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:1042: undefined reference to `SSL_pending'

I was hoping adding -lcrypto and -lpam will complete the make. Where should I include the -lpam and -lcrypto options? Do I need to edit the Makefile?

Thanks,
Rhandley

[Eduardo Chappa]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, rdca...@gmail.com wrote:

>> * On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:08:59 -0800 (PST), cha...@washington.edu wrote:
>>
>>> After four years of the last release of Alpine, and given that the re-
>>> alpine project has not advanced much since then, I am gathering part
>>> of my work in patches for Alpine and releasing version 2.10 of Alpine.
>>> This work is released under the Apache License 2.0. In order to build
>>> you will need OpenSSL 1.0 or above.

> Hi,
>
> I am also trying to build alpine-2.10 in Ubuntu, and I encountered a lot of
>
> error while procesing osdep.c. Some examples are shown below.
> /alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:143: undefined reference to `pam_setcred'
> ../c-client/c-client.a(osdep.o): In function `ssl_server_input_wait':
> /alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:1038: undefined reference to `SSL_get_fd'
> /alpine-2.10/imap/c-client/osdep.c:1042: undefined reference to `SSL_pending'
>
> I was hoping adding -lcrypto and -lpam will complete the make. Where should I include the -lpam and -lcrypto options? Do I need to edit the Makefile?

It seems that you need to install the pam and SSL development headers (the
.h files). The next release of Alpine will check for the existence of
these files at the configure stage and will complain about it, if it can
not find them.

There is another error that occurs when one builds in Debian/Ubuntu that
has to do with linking. That error will also be fixed in the next version
of Alpine. For that error there is a "patch" for the Debian/Ubuntu build
that is being distributed. Take a look at

http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/alpine/2.10+dfsg-1

You might want to apply the 10_fix_linking_order.patch (this is not a
linking order problem as the name of the patch makes you believe, it is a
"c-client.a does not have the symbols that are being sought by the linker
problem," that is, c-client.a is linked dynamically, not statically)

By the way, Debian and Ubuntu already distribute version 2.10 as their
official version, in case you want to run that binary, instead of building
yours.

--
Eduardo
http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/

[wbma...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:08:59 AM UTC-5, cha...@washington.edu wrote:

Many thanks for doing this - have been using alpine for years - much faster and more efficient than the other mailers out there. Compiles with no problem on opensuse. Hopefully you can post it to github - that is very convenient because one just clones the source, making updating and recompiling new versions very easy (plus one can contribute patches). best bm

[mysel...@gmail.com]

> Please test it and let me know any problems that you find with it.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eduardo
>
> http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/

Moin Eduardo,

./configure gcc=/usr/local/bin/gcc46 cpp=/usr/local/bin/cpp46 --disable-nls --disable-debug --enable-from-encoding --with-debug-level=0 --with-debug-files=0 --with-debug-file=0 --with-ssl-dir=/usr/local/ --with-ssl-include-dir=/usr/local/include/openssl --with-ssl-lib-dir=/usr/local/lib --without-smime --without-tcl --without-krb5

Alpine 2.11 works fine in FreeBSD 8.4-RELEASE-p5 amd64.

Thanks you for the new Alpine release
Pauli

[Eduardo Chappa]

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, mysel...@gmail.com wrote:

> Moin Eduardo,
>
> ./configure gcc=/usr/local/bin/gcc46 cpp=/usr/local/bin/cpp46 --disable-nls --disable-debug --enable-from-encoding --with-debug-level=0 --with-debug-files=0 --with-debug-file=0 --with-ssl-dir=/usr/local/ --with-ssl-include-dir=/usr/local/include/openssl --with-ssl-lib-dir=/usr/local/lib --without-smime --without-tcl --without-krb5
>
> Alpine 2.11 works fine in FreeBSD 8.4-RELEASE-p5 amd64.
>
> Thanks you for the new Alpine release
> Pauli

Thank you Pauli for testing. In case you are interested in testing the
latest alpha version, download it from

http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/alpha/release/

Thank you for all your help!

--
Eduardo
http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/