[Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
Greetings all, I am pleased to announce that after close to two years, we are finally starting the release cycle for nmh 1.6 and the first release candidate is now available! You can download it here: http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/nmh/nmh-1.6-RC1.tar.gz (I've also included a MIME external-body pointer to it below, which newer versions of nmh should be able to use). This release has a large number of new features, too numerous to list here. The NEWS file included in the distribution has a reasonably complete list of new features, bugfixes, and other changes. If you encounter any problems with this distribution, please don't hesitate to let us know at nmh-workers@nongnu.org. Ken Hornstein on behalf of the nmh development team ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
[Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
Greetings all, I am pleased to announce that after close to two years, we are finally starting the release cycle for nmh 1.6 and the first release candidate is now available! You can download it here: http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/nmh/nmh-1.6-RC1.tar.gz (I've also included a MIME external-body pointer to it below, which newer versions of nmh should be able to use). This release has a large number of new features, too numerous to list here. The NEWS file included in the distribution has a reasonably complete list of new features, bugfixes, and other changes. If you encounter any problems with this distribution, please don't hesitate to let us know at nmh-workers@nongnu.org. Ken Hornstein on behalf of the nmh development team ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
On behalf on nmh users, everywhere, thank you so very much. Norman Shapiro ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>Greetings all, > >I am pleased to announce that after close to two years, we are finally >starting the release cycle for nmh 1.6 and the first release candidate is >now available! You can download it here: > > http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/nmh/nmh-1.6-RC1.tar.gz I started to prepare patch for FreeBSD port and during preparation I noted that contrib scripts use direct paths, like /bin/bash or /usr/bin/perl. Last one can be handled by FreeBSD, but first one will be broken. If script authors do not object, I'd like to propose a patch, which replaces direct paths with indirect '/usr/bin/env' call. It will make code a little bit more portable between the systems. diff --git a/docs/contrib/ml b/docs/contrib/ml index 66bcf10..5eedbd3 100755 --- a/docs/contrib/ml +++ b/docs/contrib/ml @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -#!/bin/bash +#!/usr/bin/env bash # ml is a mail reading interface for mh(1). the design is that of # a thin wrapper (this script) which uses 'less' for message diff --git a/docs/contrib/replyfilter b/docs/contrib/replyfilter index c7d4643..4c1f291 100755 --- a/docs/contrib/replyfilter +++ b/docs/contrib/replyfilter @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -#!/usr/bin/perl +#!/usr/bin/env perl # # replyfilter - A reply filter for nmh # diff --git a/docs/contrib/vpick b/docs/contrib/vpick index a3eb939..3578ae1 100755 --- a/docs/contrib/vpick +++ b/docs/contrib/vpick @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ -#!/usr/bin/perl -w +#!/usr/bin/env perl use strict; +use warnings; use vars qw($cui $list $win $VERSION); #5.12 introduced a warning about prototypes that afflicts old Curses::UI ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>I started to prepare patch for FreeBSD port and during preparation >I noted that contrib scripts use direct paths, like /bin/bash or >/usr/bin/perl. Last one can be handled by FreeBSD, but first one will be >broken. I have mixed feelings about this; I think /bin/bash is wrong, but I thought that /bin/sh should actually work everywhere. I know perl is all over the place, but I thought /usr/bin/perl was pretty standard. What do others think? --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote: > I have mixed feelings about this; I think /bin/bash is wrong, but I thought > that /bin/sh should actually work everywhere. I know perl is all over > the place, but I thought /usr/bin/perl was pretty standard. What do > others think? /bin/sh should be used for shell scripts, and any scripts should avoid anything that only Bash supports. As for perl, /usr/bin/perl is fairly standard if Perl is installed, so I see no problem leaving it that way. However, the following could be used if you want to make perl scripts more flexible: #!/usr/bin/env perl The only real downside to this is if scripts can be run as root. Using env method could be a potential vulnerability. --ewh ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>I have mixed feelings about this; I think /bin/bash is wrong, but I thought >that /bin/sh should actually work everywhere. It depends on the script. If it needs bash, then it should be specified as bash since bash will operate with a simpler feature set if invoked as sh. >I know perl is all over the place, but I thought /usr/bin/perl was pretty >standard. What do others think? /usr/bin/perl is the de facto location. I have no problem with an env wrapper, but I cannot guarantee that I'll bother to keep in mind for any future updates of my script :-P P.S. Although env is noted as a portability measure for scripts, it's worth noting that it is reliant upon a properly configured PATH. ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
earl wrote: > part text/plain 896 > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote: > > > I have mixed feelings about this; I think /bin/bash is wrong, but I thought > > that /bin/sh should actually work everywhere. I know perl is all over > > the place, but I thought /usr/bin/perl was pretty standard. What do > > others think? > > /bin/sh should be used for shell scripts, and any scripts should avoid > anything that only Bash supports. these are contrib scripts we're discussing -- not things installed to the filesystem as part of MH proper. seems to me that if someone's trying to run something from contrib, it's not too big a stretch that they might have to customize it for their environment, however slightly. but if the /usr/bin/env trick is "normal", and safe, it's fine with me. paul > > As for perl, /usr/bin/perl is fairly standard if Perl is installed, so I > see no problem leaving it that way. However, the following could be > used if you want to make perl scripts more flexible: > > #!/usr/bin/env perl > > The only real downside to this is if scripts can be run as root. Using > env method could be a potential vulnerability. > > --ewh > > ___ > Nmh-workers mailing list > Nmh-workers@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers -- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 55.9 degrees) ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
Jerrad Pierce writes: > P.S. Although env is noted as a portability measure for scripts, > it's worth noting that it is reliant upon a properly configured PATH. FWIW, use of "env" in this way is a bit of a religious issue; some people think it's good and others say differently. My former employer Red Hat actually has a policy against use of env in this way in distro-supplied scripts (instituted after a long internal discussion that started with a proposal *for* always using env). I don't recall all the arguments, but I think it came down to a decision that such scripts should prefer invoking the official copy of perl and not any unofficial one that someone might have in their PATH. Obviously the stakes get higher for scripts that the root user might run, and I think that was part of it too. Whichever way you do it will make somebody unhappy. But personally, I'd rather see nonstandard-perl-location be handled by explicitly putting the right /path/to/perl into the scripts at build time, based on the configure script's determination of which perl to use. regards, tom lane ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
Hi Ken,
> I have mixed feelings about this; I think /bin/bash is wrong, but I
> thought that /bin/sh should actually work everywhere.
If it's a bash script, as opposed to a dash, sh, or zsh one, then it
should specify bash. And if bash is somewhere other than /bin then the
user probably has the nous to resolve the problem.
> I know perl is all over the place, but I thought /usr/bin/perl was
> pretty standard. What do others think?
Yes, I'd expect it to be there rather than /bin. Perl's -x allows a
Perl script to start
#!/bin/sh
#! -*-perl-*-
eval 'exec perl -x -wS $0 ${1+"$@"}'
if 0;
as a means of avoiding /usr/bin/env. This is handy because on at least
one system I used, AIX 3.2.5 perhaps, env(1) was only in /bin and not
/usr/bin; /bin/sh always existed.
Cheers, Ralph.
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>FWIW, use of "env" in this way is a bit of a religious issue; some people >think it's good and others say differently. Sigh. I lack the energy to make a decision regarding this issue; if someone wants to make a change and commit it (and thus take responsibility for it) please feel free. I will note these scripts are in contrib, and at least one of the perl ones (replyfilter) is designed to be copied into your own directory and modified. --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
ken wrote: > part text/plain 603 > >FWIW, use of "env" in this way is a bit of a religious issue; some people > >think it's good and others say differently. > > Sigh. I lack the energy to make a decision regarding this issue; if someone > wants to make a change and commit it (and thus take responsibility for it) > please feel free. > > I will note these scripts are in contrib, and at least one of the > perl ones (replyfilter) is designed to be copied into your own directory > and modified. i've just pushed a runtime check to docs/contrib/ml to make it work correctly on most shells, with slightly reduced functionality on strict-posix /bin/sh variants. (namely, the absence of the "read -n N" feature.) i'm leaving the #! line as /bin/bash, since that's how i wrote and tested. paul -- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 49.3 degrees) ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>i've just pushed a runtime check to docs/contrib/ml to make it work >correctly on most shells, with slightly reduced functionality on >strict-posix /bin/sh variants. (namely, the absence of the "read -n >N" feature.) i'm leaving the #! line as /bin/bash, since that's how i >wrote and tested. FYI, if you want that change to be in 1.6, it should be cherry-picked to the 1.6-release branch. E.g.: % git checkout 1.6-release % git cherry-pick 63defc6d56eb92 % git push --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
ken wrote: > part text/plain 631 > >i've just pushed a runtime check to docs/contrib/ml to make it work > >correctly on most shells, with slightly reduced functionality on > >strict-posix /bin/sh variants. (namely, the absence of the "read -n > >N" feature.) i'm leaving the #! line as /bin/bash, since that's how i > >wrote and tested. > > FYI, if you want that change to be in 1.6, it should be cherry-picked > to the 1.6-release branch. E.g.: > > % git checkout 1.6-release > % git cherry-pick 63defc6d56eb92 > % git push yeah, i know. i was meaning to ask how we were managing the branches. now i know. paul -- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 43.9 degrees) ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
On Apr 15, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Mikhail wrote: > If script authors do not object, I'd like to propose a patch, which > replaces direct paths with indirect '/usr/bin/env' call. It will make > code a little bit more portable between the systems. Yes please. And while you're in there, it would be nice if the /bin/bash stuff could be changed to /bin/sh. In most cases I find that sh will work just fine, and I really hate things in the ports tree that suck in a bash dependency when it's not needed. Or even when it is :-( --lyndon signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>I will note these scripts are in contrib, and at least one of the >perl ones (replyfilter) is designed to be copied into your own directory >and modified. Fair enough. I'll keep it as local patch for FreeBSD port. Just always try to give back even a small changes to upstream. ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
> >On Apr 15, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Mikhail wrote: > >> If script authors do not object, I'd like to propose a patch, which >> replaces direct paths with indirect '/usr/bin/env' call. It will make >> code a little bit more portable between the systems. > >Yes please. And while you're in there, it would be nice if the /bin/bash >stuff could be changed to /bin/sh. In most cases I find that sh will >work just fine, and I really hate things in the ports tree that suck in >a bash dependency when it's not needed. Or even when it is :-( I really like all three contrib scripts and plan to add separate port option for each one, which will install needed dependencies. Like p5-MIME tools, par, w3m for replyfilter (which is absolute requirement for me, as I'm non-english user). But if 'ml' was tested on bash by Paul, I think that installing bash - right thing to do, alas.. Keeping small patch in files/ is not a big deal anyway ;) ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>I really like all three contrib scripts and plan to add separate port >option for each one, which will install needed dependencies. Like >p5-MIME tools, par, w3m for replyfilter (which is absolute requirement >for me, as I'm non-english user). As long as there's not a requirement for those things in the base package; those were placed in contrib specifically so the nmh package did NOT have a dependency on things like perl. --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
On Apr 16, 2014, at 4:29 AM, Mikhail wrote: > I really like all three contrib scripts and plan to add separate port > option for each one, which will install needed dependencies. Like > p5-MIME tools, par, w3m for replyfilter (which is absolute requirement > for me, as I'm non-english user). That really seems like overkill. Also, none of those scripts are regularly tested, or even supported. I would much rather see those copied into /usr/local/share/nmh/contrib, with a post install note pointing out that directory. --lyndon signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>That really seems like overkill. Also, none of those scripts are
>regularly tested, or even supported. I would much rather see those
>copied into /usr/local/share/nmh/contrib, with a post install note
>pointing out that directory.
BTW, those scripts are already installed by Automake, although the
default install location ends up being the perhaps hard-to-find
/usr/local/nmh/share/doc/nmh/contrib. It ends in there because prefix
is set to /usr/local/nmh, datarootdir is $(prefix)/share, docdir is
$(datarootdir)/doc/${PACKAGE_TARNAME} (nmh), and contrib is
$(docdir)/contrib.
--Ken
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
> >On Apr 16, 2014, at 4:29 AM, Mikhail wrote: > >> I really like all three contrib scripts and plan to add separate port >> option for each one, which will install needed dependencies. Like >> p5-MIME tools, par, w3m for replyfilter (which is absolute requirement >> for me, as I'm non-english user). > >That really seems like overkill. Also, none of those scripts are >regularly tested, or even supported. I would much rather see those >copied into /usr/local/share/nmh/contrib, with a post install note >pointing out that directory. I use replyfilter regularly to reply Russian emails, so, this one is definitely tested :-) Tbh, I consider it as a mush-have for non-english user, and would like to make life a little bit easier for other people like me. *Of course* this option is OFF by default, so nmh do not depend on perl, w3m, etc, etc. ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>That really seems like overkill. Also, none of those scripts are >regularly tested, or even supported. I would much rather see those >copied into /usr/local/share/nmh/contrib, with a post install note >pointing out that directory. They might not be tested nmh-workers, but I expect we are all eating our own dog food. After all, the contributions were made because they scratched an itch. Possibly more of an issue is the contributions following out of sync with updates. Perhaps a note should be included with each pointing to any official project page/other source for the latest and greatest? ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
Jerrad wrote: > Possibly more of an issue is the contributions following out of > sync with updates. Perhaps a note should be included with each pointing > to any official project page/other source for the latest and greatest? If it's hosted somewhere, I don't see a need to redistribute it. The FAQ has a very old list of "other software", we could break it out and update it. David ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>> Possibly more of an issue is the contributions following out of >> sync with updates. Perhaps a note should be included with each pointing >> to any official project page/other source for the latest and greatest? > >If it's hosted somewhere, I don't see a need to redistribute it. Path of least resistance for users, and also in case the official channel disappears? (The Wayback Machine's coverage is not 100% afterall ;-) >The FAQ has a very old list of "other software", we could break it out >and update it. Makes sense, FAQ could refer to a top-level README in the contribs folder. ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available
>>That really seems like overkill. Also, none of those scripts are >>regularly tested, or even supported. I would much rather see those >>copied into /usr/local/share/nmh/contrib, with a post install note >>pointing out that directory. > >They might not be tested nmh-workers, but I expect we are all eating our >own dog food. After all, the contributions were made because they scratched >an itch. Possibly more of an issue is the contributions following out of >sync with updates. Perhaps a note should be included with each pointing >to any official project page/other source for the latest and greatest? So, to provide some history ... "contrib" came in being because of replyfilter. It sort of sits apart from nmh; it's a hack, but a useful one that filled a need (that we haven't quite solved natively). It also required functionality that nmh had to add. It's a bit of an odd duck, really. Other programs came a bit later. The commonality here is that all of these things are simple one-file items that it's not worth setting up a distribution for. So where's the line between creating a pointer to an external package and including the package in nmh? I'm not sure. MIME-Tools is a bit on the edge; it's more than one file, but not very big. FWIW, I'd be glad to put an entry on the nmh homepage about it. --Ken ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
