>If "attach" instead appended an mhbuild directive to the draft, would
>that make the path after that simpler?
No.
My feeling is that if you put a mhbuild directive in the draft, you're
prepared to deal with any issues arising from it. But I don't think it's
reasonable to use attach and have it
On Dec 6, 2013, at 9:30 PM, David Levine wrote:
> On the other hand, if you don't then we're more likely to
> run on other oddball platforms that don't like tail -n
> or whatever.
Than again, I can't recall ever using the '-n' flag with tail. If 'tail -100'
doesn't work on any platform, I wou
Lyndon wrote:
> The Solaris issue is putting /usr/xpg4/bin ahead of /bin.
> That should have happened in the last century ...
>
> I should remember to do that for the buildbots, but
> sometimes I forget ...
On the other hand, if you don't then we're more likely to
run on other oddball platforms t
On Dec 6, 2013, at 8:08 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i remember the day i dropped SunOS support from BIND. glorious days are
> ahead. let's warn folks, drop solaris, and move on.
The young lads will grow up. Or burn up.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Ken Hornstein wrote:
>
> I think I have to disagree:
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html
>
> Says $(...) should work.
hah!
ok, i give.
> A more relevant question is: how long should we consider Solaris a
> relevant platform? It pains me to say it, but
On Dec 6, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> A more relevant question is: how long should we consider Solaris a
> relevant platform?
The Solaris issue is putting /usr/xpg4/bin ahead of /bin. That should have
happened in the last century ...
I should remember to do that for the buildbot
>> You're kidding, right? There are Bourne shells out there that don't
>> grok $(...)? And just when I was ready to join with the new century
>> :-P
>
>it was a ksh change. so, pdksh and bash have it. but it's not required
>for posix /bin/sh, so, i don't think nmh should depend on it.
I think I h
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
> You're kidding, right? There are Bourne shells out there that don't grok
> $(...)? And just when I was ready to join with the new century :-P
it was a ksh change. so, pdksh and bash have it. but it's not required
for posix /bin/sh, so, i don't think nmh should dep
On Dec 6, 2013, at 4:56 PM, David Levine wrote:
>Removed bash-isms from inc/test-deb359167.
You're kidding, right? There are Bourne shells out there that don't grok
$(...)? And just when I was ready to join with the new century :-P
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Valdis wrote:
> Verdict: elinks is introducing the 3 blanks.
Thanks, I'll install elinks and see what I can do to handle it.
David
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:24:30 -0500, David Levine said:
> Ralph wrote:
>
> > Hi Valdis,
> >
> > > ! Need to go! Need ... to ... go!
> > > !Need to go! Need ... to ... go!
> > >
> > > I have zero clue why mhfixmsg is apparently adding 2 leading blanks to
> > > the line.
> >
> > Give us a clue abo
Ralph wrote:
> Hi Valdis,
>
> > ! Need to go! Need ... to ... go!
> > !Need to go! Need ... to ... go!
> >
> > I have zero clue why mhfixmsg is apparently adding 2 leading blanks to
> > the line.
>
> Give us a clue about the third. ;-)
:-)
Valdis, what platform is this on? And what does
Hi Valdis,
> ! Need to go! Need ... to ... go!
> !Need to go! Need ... to ... go!
>
> I have zero clue why mhfixmsg is apparently adding 2 leading blanks to
> the line.
Give us a clue about the third. ;-)
Cheers, Ralph.
___
Nmh-workers mailing li
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:07:50 -0500, David Levine said:
> More generally: if the test suite ("make check") passes, I'd
> have very high confidence that the checkout will work well.
Speaking of which, I just did a 'git pull', and now 'make check'
throws this interesting error:
PASS: test/mhbuild/
Hi Ken,
> The way that attach works is that when you mark a file to be attached,
> it ends up with a special header in the message. post(8) sees this
> header and constructs mhbuild directives and runs it for you. That
> works fine.
>
> The way the "mime" command works is that it just runs mhbu
Hi Ken,
> > ISTM that MH's authors took a wrong turn, given their implementation
> > of bcc and their reluctance to add dcc. This pushed them towards
> > removing the recipients from a group address. Having a "normal"
> > bcc, or dcc early on, would have given that second place to put the
> > re
16 matches
Mail list logo
