Hallo Jörg.
Joerg Schilling wrote in
<2020124507.zccfs%sch...@schily.net>:
|"Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group" wrote:
|> Joerg Schilling wrote in
|> <20201210004945.i3n8e%sch...@schily.net>:
|>|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|>|> this is an iconv(3)-related error that
"Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
wrote:
> Hallo Jörg, all,
>
> Joerg Schilling wrote in
> <20201210004945.i3n8e%sch...@schily.net>:
> |Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> |> this is an iconv(3)-related error that was fixed in later version
> |> of the mailer you use. The
[I bring back austin-group-l, ok?
Thorsten Glaser wrote in
:
|Steffen Nurpmeso dixit:
|
|> #include
|> #include
|> #include
|> #include
|> int main(void){
|> char inb[16], oub[16], *inbp, *oubp;
|> iconv_t id;
|> size_t inl, oul;
|>
|> memcpy(inbp = inb,
Thorsten Glaser via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote in
:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group dixit:
|
|>|This is because m4.opengroup.org runs qmail, the arsehole under the MTAs,
|>|which auto-converted the mail from quoted-printable to 8bit, sending it
|>|as 8bit
Hallo Jörg, all,
Joerg Schilling wrote in
<20201210004945.i3n8e%sch...@schily.net>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> this is an iconv(3)-related error that was fixed in later version
|> of the mailer you use. The very error came up on the ML this
|> year[1], basically you use LATIN1 on your
Robert Elz wrote, on 10 Dec 2020:
>
> This has been discussed (somewhere) before
It was discussed on this list and resulted in bug 1157 (which was
applied in Issue 8 draft 1).
--
Geoff Clare
The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group dixit:
> |This is because m4.opengroup.org runs qmail, the arsehole under the MTAs,
> |which auto-converted the mail from quoted-printable to 8bit, sending it
> |as 8bit even to MTAs that don't offer 8BITMIME (I configured my sendmail
> |not
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> this is an iconv(3)-related error that was fixed in later version
> of the mailer you use. The very error came up on the ML this
> year[1], basically you use LATIN1 on your box, as could be
> expected, but Thorsten is known to be a Unicode character
> "junkie", so to
This has been discussed (somewhere) before - but in the context of being
able to guarantee that the filesystem command is run, and not anything
else. Specifying the full path will do that, but to do that portably
means the script needs to do its own PATH search, and that's ugly.
The overall
austin-group-l@opengroup.org wrote in
:
|Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group dixit:
|
|>here is where the original mail ended for me. Interesting that you did get
|
|This is because m4.opengroup.org runs qmail, the arsehole under the MTAs,
|which auto-converted the mail
Hallo Jörg,
Joerg Schilling wrote in
<2020120933.yyo5w%sch...@schily.net>:
|"shwaresyst via austin-group-l at The Open Group" wrote:
...
|> Hi *,
|
|Hi,
|
|here is where the original mail ended for me. Interesting that you did get
|more content. Is there any idea, why I received
"Thorsten Glaser via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
wrote:
> This is because m4.opengroup.org runs qmail, the arsehole under the MTAs,
> which auto-converted the mail from quoted-printable to 8bit, sending it
> as 8bit even to MTAs that don't offer 8BITMIME (I configured my sendmail
> not to
;>Message-ID:
>>To: austin-group-l@opengroup.org
>>Cc: miros-m...@mirbsd.org
>>Followup-To: austin-group-l@opengroup.org, miros-m...@mirbsd.org
>>Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 21:15:37 +0000 (UTC)
>>Subject: clarification needed: shell 'exec' + function (builtin, ...)
>
"shwaresyst via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
wrote:
>
> I agree more clarification is desirable. The reason I see as why the function
> isn't executed is it may be treating it as an invoke of "sh -c ls", because
> ls is a function, but this new sh does not inherit that definition so it
I agree more clarification is desirable. The reason I see as why the function
isn't executed is it may be treating it as an invoke of "sh -c ls", because ls
is a function, but this new sh does not inherit that definition so it looks on
path instead and finds the utility.
On Wednesday, December
Hi *,
I’ve got a report in IRC by a user who spotted a cross-shell difference.
In my opinion, the invocation…
sh -c 'ls() { echo meow; }; exec ls'
… is supposed to output "meow\n and return to the caller with a zero
errorlevel.
Some shells execve() the ls(1) binary instead.
In
16 matches
Mail list logo
