Hello!
Jeremie Courreges-Anglas <j...@wxcvbn.org> wrote:
|here's an update to the latest release.
|Test reports / comments / oks welcome.
This is great, thank you very much for your interest and efforts!
v14.8+ brings in over six months of fulltime development, and is
the first version of the nail/Heirloom mailx/S-nail BSD Mail
codebase branch that is capable message roundtripping without
causing possible message splitting due to faulty From_ line
detection. v14.8 also had a Coverity.com defect density of
0.0 (fwiw).
And for the first time we start to reap the fruit of all that
labour: e.g., it was finally and easily possible to implement
and offer a *ssl-method-HOST* variable, where HOST is the
address (/port) to connect to. It was really hard to get there.
Hmhm, sorry for the noise. ^.^
But now this.
Please note that any v14.8 including v14.8.2 has a really severe
file locking bug and should not be used -- i will release v14.8.3
by the end of the week!
Optionally it is possible to use the attached patch (that was also
send to the list[1]). Because i really hack many changes into
v14.8.3 (the name has to be "Startled Chicken" because of that
bug) without any forerun -- the opposite of the rest of v14.8! --
you may prefer this more conservative route instead?
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.s-nail.user/276
|Note that s-nail gained a few tests since its import in the ports tree.
Yes, dropping NO_TEST is due. (Tests are still a real dark corner
beside that, especially expect-fail cases etc. Sigh. So to say.)
Btw… Since OpenBSD ships with -lreadline, how about using
WANT_READLINE=yes instead of
| WANT_EDITLINE=1
since it is so much more comfortable? Otherwise the builtin
command line editor may be worth looking at, but maybe without
tabulator expansion (WANT_TABEXPAND=no) to not use wordexp(3).
Yes, it is simple since it lets the terminal deal with the line
(instead of implementing a visible viewpoint like e.g. ksh(1)),
but i think doing so is still more comfortable than editline(3),
especially regarding history handling. Just a suggestion.
Thanks again, and Ciao! from sunny Germany right before leap,
--steffen
commit 7f8ebc0
Author: Steffen (Daode) Nurpmeso <sdao...@users.sf.net>
Date: 2015-06-29 13:52:34 +0200
dotlock.c:_dot_dir_access(): fix return value (Martin Neitzel)..
It seems that during the rewrite i changed the control flow twice,
and did not carefully enough adjust the return value accordingly,
effectively setting a true value to true again instead of
assigning false in the other case, and another similar case.
---
dotlock.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dotlock.c b/dotlock.c
index df81fd7..43a1cbc 100644
--- a/dotlock.c
+++ b/dotlock.c
@@ -125,11 +125,12 @@ _dot_dir_access(char const *fname)
if ((rv = is_dir(path))) {
for (;;)
- if (!access(path, R_OK | W_OK | X_OK)) {
- rv = TRU1;
+ if (!access(path, R_OK | W_OK | X_OK))
break;
- } else if (errno != EINTR)
+ else if (errno != EINTR) {
+ rv = FAL0;
break;
+ }
}
ac_free(path);
@@ -328,7 +329,7 @@ dot_lock(char const *fname, int fd, size_t pollmsecs)
rv = (create_exclusive(path) == 0);
olderrno = errno;
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &oset, NULL);
- if (!rv)
+ if (rv)
goto jleave;
while (!_dot_fcntl_lock(fd, FLOCK_UNLOCK))
