Steffen Nurpmeso <[email protected]> writes: > Hello! > > Jeremie Courreges-Anglas <[email protected]> wrote: > |here's an update to the latest release. > |Test reports / comments / oks welcome. > > This is great, thank you very much for your interest and efforts! > > v14.8+ brings in over six months of fulltime development, and is > the first version of the nail/Heirloom mailx/S-nail BSD Mail > codebase branch that is capable message roundtripping without > causing possible message splitting due to faulty From_ line > detection. v14.8 also had a Coverity.com defect density of > 0.0 (fwiw). > > And for the first time we start to reap the fruit of all that > labour: e.g., it was finally and easily possible to implement > and offer a *ssl-method-HOST* variable, where HOST is the > address (/port) to connect to. It was really hard to get there. > > Hmhm, sorry for the noise. ^.^ > But now this. > > Please note that any v14.8 including v14.8.2 has a really severe > file locking bug and should not be used -- i will release v14.8.3 > by the end of the week!
I don't see a valid reason to push for an update until v14.8.3 is out. (and I am not the maintainer of the port anyway) > Optionally it is possible to use the attached patch (that was also > send to the list[1]). Because i really hack many changes into > v14.8.3 (the name has to be "Startled Chicken" because of that > bug) without any forerun -- the opposite of the rest of v14.8! -- > you may prefer this more conservative route instead? > > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.s-nail.user/276 > > |Note that s-nail gained a few tests since its import in the ports tree. > > Yes, dropping NO_TEST is due. (Tests are still a real dark corner > beside that, especially expect-fail cases etc. Sigh. So to say.) > > Btw… Since OpenBSD ships with -lreadline, how about using > WANT_READLINE=yes instead of > > | WANT_EDITLINE=1 > > since it is so much more comfortable? I thought that readline and editline proposed more or less the same features, why would one be more comfortable than the other? (Disclaimer: apart from a few tests most of my uses of s-nail are non-interactive). Anyway, since libreadline is under GPLv2+ (base system libreadline) or GPLv3+ (ports libreadline) I don't think that would be a good move. > Otherwise the builtin > command line editor may be worth looking at, but maybe without > tabulator expansion (WANT_TABEXPAND=no) to not use wordexp(3). > Yes, it is simple since it lets the terminal deal with the line > (instead of implementing a visible viewpoint like e.g. ksh(1)), > but i think doing so is still more comfortable than editline(3), > especially regarding history handling. Just a suggestion. I'll leave that discussion to others. :) -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
