Re: [boost] Logging library

From: Jens Seidel (jensseidel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-23 08:15:24

Hi John,

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:41:40PM +0300, John Torjo wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> > not sure whether you are also interested in my feedback as you ignored
> > already two mails from me with simple patches. Nevertheless I attached my
> > mail again ...
> >
> >   
> Sorry 'bout that

ah, great to see you replying so fast ...

> - it's not my fault

It is!

> - though I should have replied to 
> the mailing list.
> 
> The idea is I definitely took your comments into account - and you'll 
> see that if you take a look at the latest sources.

Great, thanks!

> Here's the problem (when I replied to your email):
> 
> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
> 
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
> 
>   jensseidel_at_[hidden]
>     SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<jensseidel_at_[hidden]>:
>     host mail.sourceforge.net [66.35.250.206]: 550-Postmaster verification failed while checking <john.code_at_[hidden]>
>     550-Called:   72.52.140.12
>     550-Sent:     RCPT TO:<postmaster_at_[hidden]>
>     550-Response: 550 No such email address
>     550-Several RFCs state that you are required to have a postmaster
>     550-mailbox for each mail domain. This host does not accept mail
>     550-from domains whose servers reject the postmaster address.
> 
>     550 Sender verify failed

Yep, that's a SPAM protection performed by SourceForge. I know about
approximately one mail per year failing because of this, maybe there are
many more rejected mails.
 
Please create a postmaster mail account on your system! This will fix
the problem on your side (just adding "postmaster: root" to /etc/aliases
should be sufficient?).
 
> Here's the original message:
> 
> > > On this list I recently posted a few comments for you, as I failed in
> > > the past to contact you (and considered the project death). See
> > > http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2007/09/30970.php
> >   
> I've seen them now - you're right about the levels stuff - I've 
> corrected it in v2. I'm not maintaining v1 since v2 is sooooo much better!

Is v2 already stable enought for daily use?
 
> > > OK, a few further comments to your new version 2:
> > >  * The zip archive contains object files. Please remove these.
> >   
> Sorry 'bout that - I think I've removed them already. Anyway, could you 
> give me the file names, just to make sure I don't miss them in the future?

In lib/logging/tests/:
 test_multiple_simple_logs.o
 test_mul_lev_difflogs.o
 test_mul_lev_samelog.o
 test_ostream_like.o
 test_simple_dump_to_cout.o
In lib/logging/tests/format/:
 test_format_write_ts.o
 test_manip_being_func.o
 test_manip_w_msgroute.o
 test_simple_formatter.o 

The latest zip archive still contains these files (just search for *.o).
 
> > >  * I attached a patch which allows your test code to be compiled by
> > >    fixing errors and warnings. A single warning remains which I marked
> > >    in the code in a comment.
> >   
> Yup, thanks - fixed it.

Will check later whether you was able to remove the last warning :-)
 
> > >    I added a Makefile to simplify the task of compiling. Read it to see
> > >    the compiler flags I used. Used compiler:
> > >    $ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ --version
> > >    g++ (Debian 20070916-1) 4.3.0 20070916 (experimental) [trunk revision 128522]
> >   
> Thanks for the makefile - unfortunately I can't use it because boost 
> uses jam - so I need to somehow make a jamfile to build the tests  :) 

Don't worry. It was just for me and I shared it with you to avoid
putting the compiler flags into the mail. I prefer Makefiles over jam
and will continue using these if possible for simplicity ...

> (I update the .zip file only once in a while - like, every 2 weeks or so 
>  :)  )

OK. I agree that this is sufficient.

Jens