On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:14:11 +0100, Thomas Jost <schnouki at schnouki.net> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:50:17 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter at praet.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:33:49 +0100, Thomas Jost <schnouki at schnouki.net> > > wrote: > > > Hello list, > > > > > > This is another rebased version of Pieter's series to add GPG and Emacs > > > as test > > > prereqs, plus some additions on my own. (Rebased and posted as requested > > > by > > > Pieter [1].) > > > > > > > Thanks Thomas! > > > > Although... you may have misread (or maybe I mistyped :), but what I > > actually intended [1] was for you to rebase *only* your fixes on top of > > my rebased series (e.g. see "tjost-fixes.patch" in att), so you could > > receive proper credit for cleaning up my mess. > > Oh, ok, I must have misread that :) > > Right now your patches don't apply cleanly on master (conflict in patch > 3 due to commit 5964a7), and I think that Dmitry's patches [1] may be a > better way to handle prereqs. So I probably won't send those patches > until we decide which approach is the way to go. > > [1] id:"1321494986-18998-1-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin at gmail.com" >
Yup, Dmitry's solution is much more elegant! > > Also, while my apprehension [2,3] re the inclusion of the SCREEN/DTACH > > prereq in patches #4,5,6 didn't have much merit (it's an all-or-nothing > > affair anyways), the issue [3] in patch #5 @ "Reply within emacs" still > > stands: `sed' will run unconditionally, and treat "EMACS" as an input > > file. (see "sed-prereq-fix.patch" in att). > > Nice catch with this sed issue. Looks like I need to be more careful > when replacing "OUTPUT" with "EMACS OUTPUT"... > > Thanks, > > -- > Thomas/Schnouki Peace -- Pieter