[PATCH] Support for reading users and/or passwords from netrc(5)

2007-05-23 Thread Luciano Rocha
ount->pass))) + ; else { snprintf (prompt, sizeof (prompt), _("Password for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: "), diff -r 357b7651d609 -r 0a3bb46d1d5e netrc.c --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 + +++ b/netrc.c Tue May 22 16:34:22 2007 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,322 @@ +/* + * Copyright

[PATCH] when using `which` send errors to /dev/null

2007-05-23 Thread Luciano Rocha
# HG changeset patch # User [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Date 1179846675 -3600 # Node ID 357b7651d6095f5b2e9c5dab1e4cb5c7fb6bc379 # Parent 516f41633e202184e897bef24a6d9f17bba7c0ba when using `which` send errors to /dev/null diff -r 516f41633e20 -r 357b7651d609 hcachever.sh --- a/hcachever.sh Sun May

Re: [PATCH] Support for reading users and/or passwords from

2007-05-23 Thread Luciano Rocha
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 11:42:21AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Wednesday, May 23 at 05:16 PM, quoth Luciano Rocha: >> Support for reading users and/or passwords from netrc(5) >> >> Extended mutt_account_getuser and mutt_account_getpass in account.c with >> netrc_

Re: [PATCH] when using `which` send errors to /dev/null

2007-05-23 Thread Luciano Rocha
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 01:33:56PM -0500, David Champion wrote: > * On 2007.05.23, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > * "Rado S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > =- Luciano Rocha wrote on Wed 23.May'07 at 18:48:01 +0100 -= > > > > > when using `whic

Re: [PATCH] when using `which` send errors to /dev/null

2007-05-23 Thread Luciano Rocha
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:01:37PM +0200, Rado S wrote: > =- Luciano Rocha wrote on Wed 23.May'07 at 20:22:32 +0100 -= > > > > It's easy enough to add a which-like command though. > > > > What about stopping to find where the binary is and check only if it

Re: [PATCH] when using `which` send errors to /dev/null

2007-05-24 Thread Luciano Rocha
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:57:45AM +0100, David Laight wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:55:25PM +0100, Luciano Rocha wrote: > > > > } 3>&2 > /dev/null 2>&1 (or 3>&2 &> /dev/null) should work instead. > > Except that &> isn&#