Re: [Nmh-workers] Where are we at for 1.7.1?

>> No, it does not attempt the printf because ICONV_ENABLED=0 > >OK, so that's it: the test doesn't handle that case properly. This begs a larger question ... should we just specify iconv as a requirement for the next release? I'm not sure it makes sense to have all of those #ifdef HAVE_ICONV

Re: [Nmh-workers] Where are we at for 1.7.1?

Andy wrote: > No, it does not attempt the printf because ICONV_ENABLED=0 OK, so that's it: the test doesn't handle that case properly. > I'm not > even sure what is supposed to alter ICONV_ENABLED (I ran with sh -x and > only ever see it accessed once). I don't see it anywhere in the

Re: [Nmh-workers] Where are we at for 1.7.1?

Thus said Ralph Corderoy on Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:01:58 +: > That's this early part. Does it attempt the printf? If so, > $ICONV_ENABLED isn't 0, and iconv(1) quite reasonably disliked > converting from `?UTF-8'. No, it does not attempt the printf because ICONV_ENABLED=0

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:41:45 + Ralph Corderoy wrote: Ralph Corderoy writes: > > Separate to completion, there's the issue of a non-nmh program being > able to accept all of an nmh's program's options and add some of its > own, hopefully without clashing. Whether an

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

Hi Ken, > Bakul wrote: > > May be the current -help option of most commands with some post > > processing is good enough? > > I have thought about that ... but AFAIK we have never committed that > the "help" output be stable. Really, I think a few extra switches > would make it a lot easier AND

Re: [Nmh-workers] Where are we at for 1.7.1?

Hi Andy, To recap, the previous mailing-list discussion was around http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2018-01/msg00130.html and http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2018-01/msg00126.html The former's suggestion, with correction, got committed as 695ed941. > if [