Stop yelling at people about the minimum sendmail version

RESOLVED FIXED in Bugzilla 2.16

Status

()

RESOLVED FIXED
15 years ago
6 years ago

People

(Reporter: justdave, Assigned: goobix)

Tracking

2.17.7
Bugzilla 2.16
Bug Flags:
approval +
blocking2.18 +
approval2.16 +
documentation +
documentation2.18 +
documentation2.16 +

Details

Attachments

(4 attachments)

continued from bug 239885...

Let's get rid of this warning altogether, not just for Windows folks.  It's
annoying, and confuses people into thinking it's complaining that their sendmail
version isn't new enough, which in fact, it prints it regardless because it has
no way to know.  I haven't seen a machine with sendmail older than 8.9 on it in
years, so this isn't worth throwing in everyone's face anymore.  The 8.7 prereq
is a matter for the documentation now.

Comment 1

15 years ago
Justdave,

Sounds good to me. Is this a blocker for 2.18?
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18
Sure.
Flags: blocking2.18+
(Assignee)

Comment 3

15 years ago
Created attachment 145733 [details] [diff] [review]
v1
Assignee: zach → vlad
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Attachment #145733 - Flags: review?
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Flags: approval?
Attachment #145733 - Flags: review? → review+
Flags: documentation?
Flags: approval?
Flags: approval+
Flags: approval2.16+
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.18 → Bugzilla 2.16
(Assignee)

Comment 4

15 years ago
Checking in checksetup.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/checksetup.pl,v  <--  checksetup.pl
new revision: 1.276; previous revision: 1.275
done

Checking in checksetup.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/checksetup.pl,v  <--  checksetup.pl
new revision: 1.149.2.24; previous revision: 1.149.2.23
done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
(Assignee)

Updated

15 years ago
Flags: documentation2.16?
This should be an easy docs fix, just make mention of it in the prereqs section.
Flags: documentation2.18?

Comment 6

14 years ago
Created attachment 164212 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for 2.16

Comment 7

14 years ago
Created attachment 164213 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for 2.18

Comment 8

14 years ago
Created attachment 164214 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for tip (2.19.1)

Same as for 2.18, but not sure of the protocol, and better to be safe than
sorry.

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #164212 - Flags: review?(documentation)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #164213 - Flags: review?(documentation)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #164214 - Flags: review?(documentation)
(Assignee)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #164212 - Flags: review?(documentation) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 9

14 years ago
Comment on attachment 164213 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for 2.18

The first -/+ changeset includes a very large line that could fit very well on
two lines :-) (we try to keep those at 80 chars maximum)
Attachment #164213 - Flags: review?(documentation) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 10

14 years ago
Comment on attachment 164214 [details] [diff] [review]
Doc changes for tip (2.19.1)

Same here.
Attachment #164214 - Flags: review?(documentation) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 11

14 years ago
Checking in docs/xml/installation.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/installation.xml,v  <-- 
installation.xml
new revision: 1.72.2.9; previous revision: 1.72.2.8
done

Checking in docs/xml/installation.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/installation.xml,v  <-- 
installation.xml
new revision: 1.81; previous revision: 1.80
done

Checking in docs/xml/installation.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/installation.xml,v  <-- 
installation.xml
new revision: 1.18.2.20; previous revision: 1.18.2.19
done
Flags: documentation?
Flags: documentation2.18?
Flags: documentation2.18+
Flags: documentation2.16?
Flags: documentation2.16+
Flags: documentation+
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.