Bug#743179: the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters

2018-12-03 Thread Benno Schulenberg
Control: retitle -1 "the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters"

Bug#743179: the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters

2018-12-03 Thread Benno Schulenberg
Control: fixed -1 2.3.2-1

Bug#743179: the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters

2018-12-03 Thread Benno Schulenberg
Control: fixed -1 2.3.6-1

Bug#743179: the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters

2017-07-01 Thread Benno Schulenberg
I just made the dist-upgrade to Debian 9.0, which included an update of package nano to version 2.7.4-1 and the problem vanished, the bug is solved in 2.7.4-1. Yes, the bug is absent since version 2.3.2. It was fixed on 2013-01-02 by David Benjamin (git commit a016f00f). Later, the bug was

Bug#743179: the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters

2017-07-01 Thread bernward . pub
Hello Benno, I just made the dist-upgrade to Debian 9.0, which included an update of package nano to version 2.7.4-1 and the problem vanished, the bug is solved in 2.7.4-1. > Yes, apparently there was a bug in 2.2.6 (and a few versions > after it). Regards, Bernward.

Bug#743179: the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters

2017-06-29 Thread Benno Schulenberg
To figure out what is going wrong, please move your /etc/nanorc and your .nanorc to a safe place, and then force a reinstall of nano. This should put a correct /etc/nanorc back into your filesystem. I did this with apt-get purge and apt-get install, /etc/nanorc is identical with the backup.

Bug#743179: the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters

2017-06-29 Thread bernward . pub
Hello Benno, at the time of my first report in 2014, I used a PowerPC architecture (Apple B G3). In the meantime, I set up that machine completely new as backup server and the old configuration is no longer available. Maybe, that is the explanation for the former strange version number. > your

Bug#743179: the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters

2017-06-28 Thread Benno Schulenberg
Hello Bernward, I checked the regexes and could not find any clou, that the regex for awk could catch shell scripts: Okay. If a wrong regex would be the cause of the problem, the effect should be a wrong syntax highlighting, but not just _no_ highlighting. Correct. To figure out what is

Bug#743179: the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters

2017-06-28 Thread bernward . pub
Hello Benno, thank you. I checked the regexes and could not find any clou, that the regex for awk could catch shell scripts: from my awk.nanorc: syntax "awk" "\.a:wk$" header "^#!/usr/bin/g?awk" If a wrong regex would be the cause of the problem, the effect should be a wrong

Bug#743179: the order of syntax definitions in nanorc matters

2017-06-26 Thread Benno Schulenberg
Hello Bernward, Please see my answer from two years ago on the Debian page for this bug (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=743179). I didn't know then that one has to CC the reporter in order to get a message across. Regards, Benno