In most part, our .rst documents are indented with 8 spaces instead
of tabs. Bring the rest of the lines to the same format.
Also, on one (supposedly empty) line, trailing spaces were removed.
This set is something that does not collide with anything that is
currently in the review queue --
On Sat, Nov 26 2016, Jani Nikula wrote:
> There is really no need to have a separate install target for the
> desktop file. Just install the desktop file with emacs, with a
> configure option to opt out.
> v3: check for desktop-file-install in configure.
This and the
On Sat, Nov 26 2016, David Bremner wrote:
> Tomi Ollila writes:
>> (you could amend copying Makefile.global for out of tree builds -- or use
>> include $(srcdir)/Makefile.global)
> OK, I did that, and pushed to master and release. BTW, the next
Jani Nikula writes:
> The notmuch.desktop file is part of notmuch-emacs. Move it under
> emacs, and rename as notmuch-emacs-mua.desktop to reflect this.
Pushed patches 2-6 to master
notmuch mailing list
Tomi Ollila writes:
> (you could amend copying Makefile.global for out of tree builds -- or use
> include $(srcdir)/Makefile.global)
OK, I did that, and pushed to master and release. BTW, the next line
still looks problematic for oot builds? Did not test...
This makes the option to choose Notmuch as mailto: handler show up in
the desktop environment settings. Ignore errors.
v3: ignore errors on update-desktop-database. I don't want to skip
desktop-file-install if update-desktop-database is not available, and
if update fails, it's likely a
There is really no need to have a separate install target for the
desktop file. Just install the desktop file with emacs, with a
configure option to opt out.
v3: check for desktop-file-install in configure.
I don't see a reason to differentiate between "with desktop" and "have
Add a file for scandir to find, but use gdb to remove it before it
The ugly part is that this should require gdb as external dep... but
we shouldn't skip all of T050-new.sh if gdb isn't there. I'm in a
hurry, any good ideas?
test/T050-new.sh | 30
On Sat, 26 Nov 2016, David Bremner wrote:
> It seems important to give the numeric return code for people writing
> scripts. Hopefully deviations from this convention are rare.
As a token of my gratitude, a test for the change follows. I'm not sure
if it's quite ready