MSGID: 1:154/10 65d9f214
REPLY: 1:16/101 65d98430
PID: Smapinntpd/Linux 2.0 b20240216
CHRS: UTF-8 4
TZUTC: -0600
TID: hpt/lnx 1.9 2024-02-05
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 06:44:36 -0500, Nil Alexandrov -> All wrote:

 NA> I assume that everybody here is using the smapi version, am I right?
 NA> Though, the jamnntpd is based on the most recent jamlib which is 32/64bit
 NA> compatible. Cause I remember time when I could do a shortcut by passing
 NA> -m32 flag to gcc to overcome the 64bit issues in the code.

I think at this point it's a bit scattered. Some are using one or the other,
and some are using both (for testing purposes, probably).

 NA> What is the point to use the jamnntpd version today, when you could just
 NA> use the modern Jam+Squish+MSG nntpd version?

 NA> For those who prefer the old fashion jamnntpd, and I appreciate their
 NA> decision, we could just put #ifdef jamlib VS SMAPI to make just one source
 NA> repo and accumulate all recent patches in one place. Sounds cool?

Jamlib hasn't been touched in what, 30 years? Whereas Smapi is a lot more
current, and used in husky sources as well, which would make it a better fit
for continuing the code.

I agree with you, however I don't have much say in the matter since I'm not
the one coding. ;)

Regards,
Nick

... "Take my advice, I don't use it anyway."
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:115.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderb
 * Origin: _thePharcyde distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)
SEEN-BY: 15/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 120/616 123/10 124/5016
SEEN-BY: 128/260 135/225 153/757 7715 154/10 30 40 50 700 203/0 218/700
SEEN-BY: 220/90 221/0 6 226/18 30 227/114 229/110 112 113 206 307
SEEN-BY: 229/317 426 428 470 664 700 240/1120 5832 266/512 280/464
SEEN-BY: 280/5003 5555 282/1038 291/111 292/8125 301/1 310/31 320/219
SEEN-BY: 322/757 341/66 234 342/200 396/45 423/120 460/58 256 1124
SEEN-BY: 467/888 633/280 712/848 770/1 2320/105 3634/12 5020/400 5054/30
PATH: 154/10 280/464 460/58 229/426