Hello, All!

Merge jamnntpd and smapinntpd repos

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

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

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

Best Regards,
Nil
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: KC1GSH (1:16/101)

On 24.02.2024 7:44, Nil Alexandrov wrote:

Merge jamnntpd and smapinntpd repos

I assume that everybody here is using the smapi version, am I right?

Wrong. :)

Though, the jamnntpd is based on the most recent jamlib which is
32/64bit compatible. Cause I remember time when I could do a shortcut by passing -m32 flag to gcc to overcome the 64bit issues in the code.

I have compiled the current jamnntpd version after fixes of Carlos and
some of my own. Both 64bit with -m32 and real 32bit linux work now
pretty ok.

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

Indeed..

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

Sounds cool. Go ahead!

'Tommi

---
* Origin: jamnntpd/lnx (2:221/1.0)

Hello, Tommi!

Saturday February 24 2024 08:21, from Tommi Koivula -> Nil Alexandrov:

I assume that everybody here is using the smapi version, am I right?

Wrong. :)

Glad I found one instance here. Could you please elaborate on this?

I have compiled the current jamnntpd version after fixes of Carlos and some of my own. Both 64bit with -m32 and real 32bit linux work now
pretty ok.

Means that jamnntpd is nature as smapinntpd but only limited to JAM format, right?

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

Indeed..

Yeah so what is the point?

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

Sounds cool. Go ahead!

I have no idea how your github repos works and whatever credentials I need to contribute. And I even do not know whether the github has the most recent versions of both.

'Tommi

BTW, why don'y you use the FTN style quotes like NA> here, shame on you Usenet user.

Best Regards, Nil
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: Linux 2.6.32-042stab145.3 (1:16/101)

24/02/2024 6:44, Nil Alexandrov -> All:

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

I'm using JamNNTPd because it was easy for me to compile it for Win32. I haven't managed to compile SmapiNNTPd.

Carlos

--- Mozilla Thunderbird
* Origin: cyberiada-NNTP (2:341/234.99)

24 Feb 2024 00:44, you wrote to All:

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

Sounds interesting, but looks like it would require a big rework of the code. Compare nntpserv.c from JamNNTPd and SmapiNNTPd and you'll see there are many differences.

There are parts that are identical, however. Luckily the patches I've been posting recently had to made in those common parts, so they were valid for both.

Carlos

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: cyberiada (2:341/234.1)

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 06:44:36 -0500, Nil Alexandrov -> All wrote:

I assume that everybody here is using the smapi version, am I right? Though, the jamnntpd is based on the most recent jamlib which is 32/64bit compatible. Cause I remember time when I could do a shortcut by passing -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).

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

For those who prefer the old fashion jamnntpd, and I appreciate their decision, we could just put #ifdef jamlib VS SMAPI to make just one source 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)

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 17:15:48 +0100, Carlos Navarro -> Nil Alexandrov wrote:

I'm using JamNNTPd because it was easy for me to compile it for Win32. I haven't managed to compile SmapiNNTPd.

And even so, Currently with Smapinntpd you need to grab smapi and point to it before compiling (sometimes forcefully). It would be nice to include smapi with Smapinntpd and change the makefiles to actually know where it is.

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)