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