Trimming digest, replying inline below...
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:00 AM, <mutt-dev-requ...@mutt.org> wrote:
>
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:28:17 -0500
> From: Derek Martin <inva...@pizzashack.org>
> To: mutt-dev@mutt.org
> Subject: Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script
> Message-ID: <20180417192817.ge13...@bladeshadow.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:26:51AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:18:57AM -0400, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> > > At 15:41 +0200 16 Apr 2018, Gero Treuner <gero-m...@innocircle.com>
> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:53:56AM -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote:
> > > > > { [ -e ".git" ] && command -v git >/dev/null 2>&1; } \
> > > > > || exec cat VERSION
> > > > >
> > > > > does not work when run in a bourne shell.? The -e option is not
> supported in
> [...]
> > Whoops, thank you Paul for pointing this out.
>
> One wonders what systems these are, and whether this is even worth
> considering. If it is, I believe Bourne shell allows compound tests
> like the following:
>
> [ -f $file -o -d $file ]
>
This is on Solaris 10. According to the man page for test, the -o <option>
option is used to check whether or not <option> is on.
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:32:20 -0500
> From: Derek Martin <inva...@pizzashack.org>
> To: mutt-dev@mutt.org
> Subject: Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script
> Message-ID: <20180417193220.gf13...@bladeshadow.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:28:17PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > I believe Bourne shell allows compound tests like the following:
> >
> > [ -f $file -o -d $file ]
>
> [Although, FWIW, I could have sworn Bourne shell supported -e as
> well...]
>
According to the man page, not available in sh.
>
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:01:09 -0700
> From: "Kevin J. McCarthy" <ke...@8t8.us>
> To: mutt-dev@mutt.org
> Subject: Re: Problem with mutt version.sh script
> Message-ID: <20180418010109.gd9...@afu.lan>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:28:17PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Wasn't there some recent-ish notion that Mutt would now require
> > vaguely modern (i.e. C99-compliant) systems to compile? If so,
> > doesn't that implicitly include having a /bin/sh that is POSIX?
>
> Yes, I (we) have been trying to move in that direction. So perhaps it's
> a step in the wrong direction to support non-posix shells, when Mutt
> already requires a new compiler, SSL libraries, etc.
>
> I think because the change is so tiny, I don't mind bending a bit. I've
> already pushed a change to [-r], but if there turn out to be issues I'll
> go with your suggestion, Derek.
>
> Paul, for everyone's curiosity, is this the only issue you've hit with
> compilation? Also, what system are you running?
>
This is on Solaris 10, x86 and SPARC. I don't currently have a Solaris 11
machine running but hope to soon. Once I get it up and running I can test
there as well.
>
>
--
Paul Keusemann pkeu...@gmail.com
4266 Joppa Court (952) 894-7805
Savage, MN 55378
