Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-26 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2018-04-23 14:25:29 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > [Then again, I made the same arguments about binutils removing the > -[number] option to head and tail, and the maintainers went ahead and > did it anyway. Of course, they finally realized their mistake, and PUT > IT BACK IN.] This is different:

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-23 Thread Derek Martin
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:37:31PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-04-20 17:01:50 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:24:43PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2018-04-17 14:28:17 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > > > > > > > [ -f $file -o -d $file ] > > > > > > A

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-23 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2018-04-20 17:01:50 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:24:43PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-04-17 14:28:17 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > > One wonders what systems these are, and whether this is even worth > > > considering. If it is, I believe Bourne shell al

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-20 Thread Derek Martin
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:24:43PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-04-17 14:28:17 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > One wonders what systems these are, and whether this is even worth > > considering. If it is, I believe Bourne shell allows compound tests > > like the following: > > > > [

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-19 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2018-04-17 14:28:17 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > One wonders what systems these are, and whether this is even worth > considering. If it is, I believe Bourne shell allows compound tests > like the following: > > [ -f $file -o -d $file ] AFAIK, -o is not portable and has been marked obsoles

Re: Subject: Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-18 Thread Derek Martin
; To: mutt-dev@mutt.org > > Subject: Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script > > Message-ID: <20180417192817.ge13...@bladeshadow.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:26:51AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:

Subject: Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-18 Thread Paul Keusemann
Trimming digest, replying inline below... On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:00 AM, wrote: > > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:28:17 -0500 > From: Derek Martin > To: mutt-dev@mutt.org > Subject: Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script > Message-ID: <20180417192

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-17 Thread Kevin J. McCarthy
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:28:17PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > Wasn't there some recent-ish notion that Mutt would now require > vaguely modern (i.e. C99-compliant) systems to compile? If so, > doesn't that implicitly include having a /bin/sh that is POSIX? Yes, I (we) have been trying to move i

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-17 Thread Derek Martin
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:28:17PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > I believe Bourne shell allows compound tests like the following: > > [ -f $file -o -d $file ] [Although, FWIW, I could have sworn Bourne shell supported -e as well...] -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key I

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-17 Thread Derek Martin
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:26:51AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:18:57AM -0400, Aaron Schrab wrote: > > At 15:41 +0200 16 Apr 2018, Gero Treuner wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:53:56AM -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote: > > > > { [ -e ".git" ] && command -v git >/d

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-17 Thread Aaron Schrab
At 15:27 +0200 17 Apr 2018, Vincent Lefevre wrote: I suppose that -r should work since .git must be readable to be useful. That's not actually true. When it's a directory, a large number of operations can be done without it being readable (in my testing I haven't come across anything that fa

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-17 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2018-04-16 07:53:56 -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote: > I have just built mutt-1.9.5 on several platforms and ran into a problem > with the version.sh script on systems where /bin/sh is not bash. I suppose you meant... where /bin/sh is not a POSIX shell. On 2018-04-16 09:26:51 -0700, Kevin J. McCar

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-16 Thread Kevin J. McCarthy
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:18:57AM -0400, Aaron Schrab wrote: > At 15:41 +0200 16 Apr 2018, Gero Treuner wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:53:56AM -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote: > > > { [ -e ".git" ] && command -v git >/dev/null 2>&1; } \ > > > || exec cat VERSION > > > > > > does not work when

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-16 Thread Aaron Schrab
At 15:41 +0200 16 Apr 2018, Gero Treuner wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:53:56AM -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote: { [ -e ".git" ] && command -v git >/dev/null 2>&1; } \ || exec cat VERSION does not work when run in a bourne shell.  The -e option is not supported in I'd prefer using an option

Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-16 Thread Gero Treuner
Hi, On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:53:56AM -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote: > I have just built mutt-1.9.5 on several platforms and ran into a problem > with the version.sh script on systems where /bin/sh is not bash. > > This: > > { [ -e ".git" ] && command -v git >/dev/null 2>&1; } \ > || exec cat VER

Problem with mutt version.sh script

2018-04-16 Thread Paul Keusemann
Hello, I have just built mutt-1.9.5 on several platforms and ran into a problem with the version.sh script on systems where /bin/sh is not bash. This: { [ -e ".git" ] && command -v git >/dev/null 2>&1; } \ || exec cat VERSION does not work when run in a bourne shell.  The -e option is not s