Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-17 19:46:02 -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > While you're lecturing me, maybe you can read what I wrote. There's > important details there that obviously escaped your notice. The fact that > 'copiousoutput' is in the 'open' lines forces mutt to leave the file there > (it assumes that the

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sunday, 17 June 2007 at 19:46, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Sunday, June 17 at 10:06 PM, quoth Vincent Lefevre: >>> image/*; open %s; copiousoutput; nametemplate=%s.jpg >>> text/html; elinks -dump -force-html %s; needsterminal; copiousoutput; >>> application/pdf; open %s; copiousoutput;

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sunday, June 17 at 10:06 PM, quoth Vincent Lefevre: image/*; open %s; copiousoutput; nametemplate=%s.jpg text/html; elinks -dump -force-html %s; needsterminal; copiousoutput; application/pdf; open %s; copiousoutput; nametemplate=%s.pdf application/msword; open %s; copiousoutput

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-17 12:22:33 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:23:44PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > But I assume that you're not able to give a mailcap that works under > > Mac OS X without a line of code. > > I guess I really don't care, since I don't use OS X, and have no pl

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-17 10:20:43 -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > Well, he may not (and, if he doesn't use OSX, he shouldn't have to), > but I can: > > image/*; open %s; copiousoutput; nametemplate=%s.jpg > text/html; elinks -dump -force-html %s; needsterminal; copiousoutput; > application/pdf; open

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:23:44PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > No code at all, unless you consider the parameter substitution to be > > code... which I don't. > > But I assume that you're not able to give a mailcap that works under > Mac OS X without a line of code. I guess I really don't c

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sunday, June 17 at 05:23 PM, quoth Vincent Lefevre: No code at all, unless you consider the parameter substitution to be code... which I don't. But I assume that you're not able to give a mailcap that works under Mac OS X without a line of code. Well, he may not (and, if he doesn't use OS

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-17 09:48:48 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:13:27AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > Also the .mailcap (to view attachments with external tools) also needs > > > > programming knowledge. > > > > > > No it doesn't. My mailcap has no code in it whatsoever. J

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 09:48:48AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > He could, but he shouldn't have to. If the problem needs solving, > that's Mutt's job. A lot of people reading mail on a Unix system are > people who are just starting out with Linux... they have an s/Linux/Unix/ I know people who

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:13:27AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > Also the .mailcap (to view attachments with external tools) also needs > > > programming knowledge. > > > > No it doesn't. My mailcap has no code in it whatsoever. Just simple > > command lines (which is not code). Typing th

Re: mutt 1.5.16 released

On 16Jun2007 12:46, Mike Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | What do people think about allowing the user to specify in their muttrc | what values do and do not constitute a fatal error coming from their | editor? It's needless: #!/bin/sh real-editor ${1+"$@"} xit=$? case $xit in 3|4)

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-17 05:13:27 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2007-06-16 18:46:01 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > > > Also the .mailcap (to view attachments with external tools) also > > > needs programming knowledge. > > > > No it doesn't. My mailcap has no code in it whatsoever. Just simple > > comma

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-16 18:46:01 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:09:04AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Unfortunately this was already the case: one *needs* to write a wrapper > > to avoid invalid sequences or unprintable characters to be given to the > > editor. And this is much m

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:10:43PM -0400, Mike Hunter wrote: > My one concern is that I can't seem to find any documentation that ANY > common editor actually endorses a return value that signifies a fatal > error...but maybe we should encourage them :) SCO are dying anyway, so I don't think that

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:09:04AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2007-06-16 16:58:24 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > > One may have many reasons to learn to use vi, whereas one may have no > > reason to learn to write shell scripts, or any other programming > > language. Programming should *NEVE

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:51:34PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2007-06-16 13:59:13 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > > Only if you're a programmer. Lots of people who use Mutt are not. > > Only people who use vi under Solaris 10 or SCO are affected. And one > can assume that these people are pr

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-16 16:58:24 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > One may have many reasons to learn to use vi, whereas one may have no > reason to learn to write shell scripts, or any other programming > language. Programming should *NEVER, EVER, EVER* be a requirement to > make Mutt (or any other user applica

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-16 13:59:13 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > Only if you're a programmer. Lots of people who use Mutt are not. Only people who use vi under Solaris 10 or SCO are affected. And one can assume that these people are programmers (and for the very few, if any, who are not programmers, one can a

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:50:12PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2007-06-16 14:00:20 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:44:11PM +0200, Vladimír Marek wrote: > > > Writing shell wrappers is in unix so easy, why not just define & > > > document mutt behavior and let mutt u

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-16 14:00:20 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:44:11PM +0200, Vladimír Marek wrote: > > Writing shell wrappers is in unix so easy, why not just define & > > document mutt behavior and let mutt user to tune his editor to his needs > > Because it requires that the use

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Jun 16 at 10:07, Brendan Cully wrote: > On Saturday, 16 June 2007 at 12:46, Mike Hunter wrote: > > > > What do people think about allowing the user to specify in their muttrc > > what values do and do not constitute a fatal error coming from their > > editor? It seems to me mutt *should* reac

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

* Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-16 13:59]: > Using this script method, the user has (or may have) no reason to > think his edit session failed. Mutt always gets an exit status of 0, > and does not check to see if the file was changed. The user will > naturally assume that everything w

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:44:11PM +0200, Vladimír Marek wrote: > Writing shell wrappers is in unix so easy, why not just define & > document mutt behavior and let mutt user to tune his editor to his needs Because it requires that the user learn to write shell programs. Just because you can, does

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:52:49PM +0200, Vladimír Marek wrote: > > > #!/bin/sh > > > vim "$@"; true > > > > This is no better than ignoring errors entirely, without even > > bothering to check to see if the file changed. > > You mentioned that the file has changed. Someone else might wish to > i

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

> > #!/bin/sh > > vim "$@"; true > > This is no better than ignoring errors entirely, without even > bothering to check to see if the file changed. You mentioned that the file has changed. Someone else might wish to ignore first three lines which contain message date and which is set automaticall

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

[...] > I don't think having some editor_error_code configuration list is > substantially easier for users than > > #!/bin/sh > vim "$@"; true > > The script approach, on the other hand, is a lot simpler for mutt. +1 Writing shell wrappers is in unix so easy, why not just define & document mutt

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:07:01AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote: > > What do people think about allowing the user to specify in their muttrc > > what values do and do not constitute a fatal error coming from their > > editor? It seems to me mutt *should* react if it is told there's been a > > fatal

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Saturday, 16 June 2007 at 12:46, Mike Hunter wrote: > On Jun 15 at 08:03, Derek Martin wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:31:22PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 13 at 06:03 PM, quoth Jean-Pierre Radley: > > > >Under Posix 2004 rules, I'm not sure what exit status vi wi

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Jun 15 at 08:03, Derek Martin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:31:22PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 13 at 06:03 PM, quoth Jean-Pierre Radley: > > >Under Posix 2004 rules, I'm not sure what exit status vi will > > >present, but the vi on all variants of Unix from SCO, as

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-15 17:18:14 -0400, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote: > Vincent Lefevre typed (on Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:42:18PM +0200): > | On 2007-06-15 08:19:15 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > | > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:01:21AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > | > > If your vi regards something like a failed

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

Vincent Lefevre typed (on Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:42:18PM +0200): | On 2007-06-15 08:19:15 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: | > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:01:21AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: | > > If your vi regards something like a failed pattern search as an error, | > > you have to accept that. | >

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:19:15AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:01:21AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > If your vi regards something like a failed pattern search as an error, > > you have to accept that. > > Nonsense. If Mutt behaves badly dealing with a common appli

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-15 08:19:15 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:01:21AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > If your vi regards something like a failed pattern search as an error, > > you have to accept that. > > Nonsense. If Mutt behaves badly dealing with a common application > tha

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:01:21AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > If your vi regards something like a failed pattern search as an error, > you have to accept that. Nonsense. If Mutt behaves badly dealing with a common application that people use in conjunction with Mutt, especially one Mutt spe

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:31:22PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Wednesday, June 13 at 06:03 PM, quoth Jean-Pierre Radley: > >Under Posix 2004 rules, I'm not sure what exit status vi will > >present, but the vi on all variants of Unix from SCO, as well as the > >vi on Solaris 10, adhere to the

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:01:21AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > EXIT_FAILURE, which has the value 1 under Unix. That's not strictly required by POSIX/UNIX, but is certainly the most likely value. -Dave Dodge

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-13 16:31:22 -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > Perhaps the thing to do is only pause and display a warning if there > was anything printed to stderr? No, a program may terminate unsuccessfully without outputting anything to stderr. For instance, this is the case when one uses a wrapper sh scr

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-13 18:03:15 -0400, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote: > Vincent Lefevre typed (on Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 03:13:44AM +0200): > | > Otherwise, after composing a message and exiting the editor, one > | > gets an error: > | > > | > Error running "/usr/bin/vi '/usr/tmp/mutt-jpradley-0-23020-1'"

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On Wednesday, June 13 at 06:03 PM, quoth Jean-Pierre Radley: Under Posix 2004 rules, I'm not sure what exit status vi will present, but the vi on all variants of Unix from SCO, as well as the vi on Solaris 10, adhere to the Posix 2001 standard, which includes in the clause 'consequences of erro

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

Vincent Lefevre typed (on Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 03:13:44AM +0200): | On 2007-06-10 16:27:39 -0400, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote: | > Brendan Cully typed (on Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:03:59PM -0700): | > | It's that time again. | > | > I think line 165 of curs_lib.c, which reads | > | > if (mutt

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-10 16:27:39 -0400, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote: > Brendan Cully typed (on Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:03:59PM -0700): > | It's that time again. > > I think line 165 of curs_lib.c, which reads > > if (mutt_system (cmd)) > > should instead be: > > if (mutt_system (cmd) == -1

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

Brendan Cully typed (on Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:03:59PM -0700): | It's that time again. I think line 165 of curs_lib.c, which reads if (mutt_system (cmd)) should instead be: if (mutt_system (cmd) == -1) Otherwise, after composing a message and exiting the editor, one gets an

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

On 2007-06-10 16:50:14 +0200, Michael Tatge wrote: > Does anybody have an updated trash-folder patch? Here's a patched version of Cedric Duval's trash-folder patch. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog:

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

Does anybody have an updated trash-folder patch? Michael -- BOFH excuse #400: We are Microsoft. What you are experiencing is not a problem; it is an undocumented feature. PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC1A44DD Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

* Brendan Cully on Saturday, June 09, 2007 at 21:03:59 -0700: > It's that time again. Heh. Great. > This release is largely a bug-fix release, but it does contain > a couple of small new features (next-unread-mailbox, > $message_cache_clean). But $message_cache_clean is not doing anything yet, i

[ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released

It's that time again. This release is largely a bug-fix release, but it does contain a couple of small new features (next-unread-mailbox, $message_cache_clean). Looking at the number of bugs marked as blockers for 1.6*, I think we're not quite ready to announce release candidates yet. But the devel