[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1.
From: |
Ralph Corderoy |
Subject: |
[Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1. |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:57:59 +0000 |
Hi Ken,
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2018-02/msg00017.html
>
> You said you had a fix to a broken test ... was that pushed to master?
> If that was commit d4814561e
It was.
> then that is a BIT of a problem, since that commit broke test-charset
> on MacOS X
...
> MacOS X uses GNU iconv, and it seems like change d4814561e removes
> support for the eliding of the '?' from the character set name. So...
> I think this needs to be reverted? Or we have to do something else.
GNU iconv is also used here, where I did d4814561e, but the commit does
not remove support for eliding the `?'.
The before, 79e8d527, says
iconv_elides_question_marks=0
if test "$ICONV_ENABLED" -eq 0; then
text_size=10
else
text_size=11
#### The GNU iconv library normalises charset names by eliding '?',
along
#### with some other characters. The iconv library used on
FreeBSD/NetBSD
#### doesn't.
printf x | iconv -f '?UTF-8' -t UTF-8 >/dev/null 2>&1 &&
iconv_elides_question_marks=1
fi
So let's assume we reach the end of this on Mac OS X with
ICONV_ENABLED=1
text_size=11
iconv_elides_question_marks=1
The only other use of iconv_elides_question_marks is
run_prog mhshow $msgnum > $actual 2>&1
if [ $iconv_elides_question_marks -eq 1 ]; then
check "$expected" "$actual"
The `after' from that commit does
text_size=10
test "$ICONV_ENABLED" -eq 1 && text_size=11
so that will still give the
ICONV_ENABLED=1
text_size=11
and then the run_prog is
run_prog mhshow $msgnum > $actual 2>&1
check "$expected" "$actual"
Effectively the same. It's the non-iconv_elides_question_marks
behaviour that has changed.
It did take David and I a bit of head scratching though, IIRC, so it
could be wrong but we'd need to see what's happening to help further.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Paul Vixie, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/13
- [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1.,
Ralph Corderoy <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., David Levine, 2018/02/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., David Levine, 2018/02/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., David Levine, 2018/02/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., David Levine, 2018/02/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/11