Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Glenn Burkhardt
Are you still sheparding this project?  I remembered to look at 

http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/nmh

I noticed that there are outstanding bugs - I haven't had a chance to look
at the reports.  Do you need help with them?



Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Glenn Burkhardt
Please let's do it!!

I've been using nmh-1.1-RC1.tar.gz since Nov 18, 2002.  It works.  I give
it my blessing (for whatever that's worth!).

I've forgotten who had put it together and where it's hosted - does
anyone remember??



Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Ken Hornstein
Are you still sheparding this project?  I remembered to look at 

Rather poorly, but yes (well, I just got back from a two week vacation in
Europe).

http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/nmh

I noticed that there are outstanding bugs - I haven't had a chance to look
at the reports.  Do you need help with them?

Yes, please.  If you want to sign up as an nmh developer, I will gladly add
you to the project right after you tell me your savannah userid :-)

--Ken



Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Ken Hornstein
Hi.  Seems like we've had a 1.1 release candidate sitting for a long
time.  Can we make it a release yet?  It would be nice to have something
newer than 1.0.4 going into things like Linux distributions.

Hm, well ... how about everyone (including me) makes sure what's on the
1.1 branch compiles on all of the major platforms that they have access
to, and if the answer is yes, then we call the head of the 1.1 branch
1.1 final ?

--Ken



Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Jon Steinhart
I have it working on Solaris (albeit an old 2.6) and Linux RH9.

 Hi.  Seems like we've had a 1.1 release candidate sitting for a long
 time.  Can we make it a release yet?  It would be nice to have something
 newer than 1.0.4 going into things like Linux distributions.
 
 Hm, well ... how about everyone (including me) makes sure what's on the
 1.1 branch compiles on all of the major platforms that they have access
 to, and if the answer is yes, then we call the head of the 1.1 branch
 1.1 final ?
 
 --Ken



Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Glenn Burkhardt
On Monday 02 June 2003 04:40 pm, you wrote:
 Hi.  Seems like we've had a 1.1 release candidate sitting for a long
 time.  Can we make it a release yet?  It would be nice to have something
 newer than 1.0.4 going into things like Linux distributions.

 Hm, well ... how about everyone (including me) makes sure what's on the
 1.1 branch compiles on all of the major platforms that they have access
 to, and if the answer is yes, then we call the head of the 1.1 branch
 1.1 final ?

 --Ken

A quick check:

SunOS (yes, I run a department of Computer Antiquities) fails, many functions
missing from the libraries (strerror, vnsprintf, 
snprintf).
I suggest that this be ignored.

Mandrake Linux 8.1 - no problems (and I've been using it since Aug 2002).
Mandrake Linux 9.1 - the ndbm.h file has been moved to /usr/include/gdbm,
 so the compile of slocal.c bombs; the link of slocal 
 needs -lgdbm added.  No other problems after 
correcting
 location of include files and referencing the library.
 This should be able to be fixed in the configure 
script.
Solaris 8 - test for broken 'vi' hangs in execution of 'ex',   
  
 when package  SMCvim (vim-6.0-sol8-sparc-local)
 from SunFreeware is installed.  Required installation
 of autoconf-2.13 and m4-1.4 for make to start.
 Compiles until the 'man' directory, and then:

make: Fatal error in reader: Makefile, line 75: Unexpected end of line seen
Current working directory /export/home/glenn/nmh-1.1-RC1/man

15 secs of looking at line 75 of the makefile doesn't reveal much to me:
MAN5 := $(MAN5SRC:.=.$(manext5))

Do I have to test it on all these platforms, too?  (just kidding...)

You have waited to long to release this stuff.  Now we have to fix it...

Clues on what the test for 'broken vi' does are solicited.




Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Neil W Rickert
Glenn Burkhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Clues on what the test for 'broken vi' does are solicited.

The vi on some systems (including solaris) returns a non-zero
exit status if any command at all failed during the vi session.

Presumably this makes sense if vi is running in the background
from a response file.

Anyway, nmh ignores vi exit codes on such systems.

 -NWR




Solaris 8 build

2003-06-03 Thread Glenn Burkhardt
The makefile in the 'man' directory works with GNU make, but not Sun
make (/usr/ccs/bin/make).

What's the preferred solution here?  Require GNU make?  If so, shouldn't the
configure script check for its presence, and set execution paths accordingly?



Solaris 'vim' configure bug

2003-06-03 Thread Glenn Burkhardt
If vim 6.0 is installed on a Solaris system, the 'ex' program included with 
vim 6.0 goes into an infinite loop when this statement in 'configure' is 
executed:

  if echo 'r /nonexist-file
q' | ex  /dev/null 21

It seems wrong to me to include a newline in the string this way.  It could be 
re-written as:

echo 'r /nonexist-file\nq' | ex  /dev/null 21

This works with vim 6.0 and both bash and the Solaris release of 'sh'.
Should 'configure.in' be changed this way to make it work?



Re: Solaris 'vim' configure bug

2003-06-03 Thread Glenn Burkhardt
Sorry, spoke too soon.  The real problem has to do with output redirection.

  if echo 'r /nonexist-file
q' | ex

works but 

  if echo 'r /nonexist-file
q' | ex  /dev/null 21

hangs.

Redirecting just standard output cause no problem.  But there doesn't
seem any output to redirect anyway...



Re: Solaris 'vim' configure bug

2003-06-03 Thread Jerry Peek
On 2 June 2003 at 22:13, Glenn Burkhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   if echo 'r /nonexist-file
 q' | ex  /dev/null 21
 
 It seems wrong to me to include a newline in the string this way.  It could be
 re-written as:
 
 echo 'r /nonexist-file\nq' | ex  /dev/null 21

Unless I'm missing something, both make exactly the same output:

$ echo 'r /nonexist-file
q' | od -c
000   r   /   n   o   n   e   x   i   s   t   -   f   i   l   e
020  \n   q  \n
023

$ echo 'r /nonexist-file\nq' | od -c
000   r   /   n   o   n   e   x   i   s   t   -   f   i   l   e
020  \n   q  \n
023

And the first one has the advantage that it should work on *all* Bourne
shells and all systems, whether the particular version of echo will
translate \n to a newline or not.

Jerry
-- 
Jerry Peek, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.jpeek.com/



Re: Solaris 'vim' configure bug

2003-06-03 Thread Ralph Corderoy

Hi,

   if echo 'r /nonexist-file
 q' | ex
 
 works but 
 
   if echo 'r /nonexist-file
 q' | ex  /dev/null 21
 
 hangs.
 
 Redirecting just standard output cause no problem.  But there doesn't
 seem any output to redirect anyway...

Can you use strace on Solaris to see what ex is actually doing?

Cheers,


Ralph.



Re: Solaris 'vim' configure bug

2003-06-03 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:23:17 -0400
From:Glenn Burkhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  | Redirecting just standard output cause no problem.  But there doesn't
  | seem any output to redirect anyway...

On NetBSD
Error: script, 1: /nonexist-file: No such file or directory
gets sent to stdout, so the stdout redirection is needed.
All versions of ex should generate some kind of error (unless of
course you just happen to have a /nonexist-file in your filesys).
I can imagine the output being on stderr on some systems, perhaps.

kre