Bug#832973: vile-filters: vile filter for mail broken

2016-08-03 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 04:22:38PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 09:30:38PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > >(got to that point - attaching a diff which built with 2.6.0) > > I'm not entirely convinced that this change captures what you're trying to > achieve with 2.6.0, as

Bug#832973: vile-filters: vile filter for mail broken

2016-08-03 Thread Brendan O'Dea
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 09:30:38PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: >(got to that point - attaching a diff which built with 2.6.0) I'm not entirely convinced that this change captures what you're trying to achieve with 2.6.0, as the second expression to sed makes LEX_SUBVERSION in this case equal to

Bug#832973: vile-filters: vile filter for mail broken

2016-08-02 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:24:14PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 04:22:37PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > > Out of curiosity, why does USE_LEXWRAP take an option? It doesn't appear to > > do anything with it. > > Looking at the history, it turns out that my original idea

Bug#832973: vile-filters: vile filter for mail broken

2016-08-01 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 04:22:37PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > Out of curiosity, why does USE_LEXWRAP take an option? It doesn't appear to > do anything with it. Looking at the history, it turns out that my original idea was to use the parameter as part of the name for the actual yywrap

Bug#832973: vile-filters: vile filter for mail broken

2016-08-01 Thread Brendan O'Dea
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 02:41:12AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: >On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 04:22:37PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote: >> configure.in doesn't cope with 2.6: >> >> sed -e 's/^2.5.// >> >> resulting in this output from configure: >> >> checking version of flex... 2.6.0 >>

Bug#832973: vile-filters: vile filter for mail broken

2016-08-01 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 04:22:37PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 03:40:14PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > >I normally don't build with "new" flex, but took a look today and had > >no problem building with the version in testing (which appears to match > >that in

Bug#832973: vile-filters: vile filter for mail broken

2016-08-01 Thread Brendan O'Dea
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 03:40:14PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: >I normally don't build with "new" flex, but took a look today and had >no problem building with the version in testing (which appears to match >that in experimental). > >What is the problem that you are seeing when building? The

Bug#832973: vile-filters: vile filter for mail broken

2016-07-31 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:47:24PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > The problem appears to be that flex is now version 2.6.0, which > configure doesn't appear to handle. I'll revert to the older flex for > now. I normally don't build with "new" flex, but took a look today and had no problem

Bug#832973: vile-filters: vile filter for mail broken

2016-07-30 Thread Brendan O'Dea
The problem appears to be that flex is now version 2.6.0, which configure doesn't appear to handle. I'll revert to the older flex for now. On 30 July 2016 at 21:44, Paul van Tilburg wrote: > Package: vile-filters > Version: 9.8r-1 > Severity: normal > > Dear Maintainer, > >

Bug#832973: vile-filters: vile filter for mail broken

2016-07-30 Thread Paul van Tilburg
Package: vile-filters Version: 9.8r-1 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, Since the recent upgrade to 9.8r-1 in Sid, I'm unable to edit e-mails due to vile's mail filter being broken. Vile drops me into the HighlightFilter buffer everytime I try to edit an e-mail. If I run the