Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!husc6!ogccse!schaefer
From: schaefer@ogccse.ogc.edu (Barton E. Schaefer)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mush
Subject: Re: mush patch #5
Message-ID: <3498@ogccse.ogc.edu>
Date: 30 Jun 89 17:01:18 GMT
References: <2035@taux01.UUCP> <312@nosun.UUCP> <116@borabora.omni.com>
Reply-To: schaefer@ogccse.UUCP (Barton E. Schaefer)
Organization: Oregon Graduate Center, Beaverton, OR
Lines: 44

Well, I wondered how long this flood would take to appear.  Fortunately (?)
this first is not something I did wrong:

In article <2035@taux01.UUCP> cjosta@tasu77.UUCP (Jonathan Sweedler) writes:
} I applied mush patch #5 and found that hunks 9, 10 and 15 failed on the
} man page (mush.1).  I was going to apply the patches by hand, but I
} really couldn't find any text that was at all similar.  Anybody else
} have this problem?  I think I'm up to date on all the patches and I've
} never had any failed hunks before.  If its just my problem, can someone
} just send me a copy of mush.1?  Thanks.

Just in case anyone wonders, I've been maintaining a version built entirely
by applying the patches ever since the 3-12-89 release of 6.4 (that's the
comp.sources.unix posting).  I apply every patch to that version before I
send it out to make sure there are no rejects, and it is that version (after
patching) that gets ftp'd to ucbvax as the latest mush-6.5.tar.Z.

I also save a copy one patchlevel back so I can double-check reports like
this one, which I just did, and I got no failures.  I'll send a copy of
mush.1 to Mr. Sweedler as soon as our e-mail is working reliably again. :-(

} Also, concerning the 'patch' to the patch.  Is this going to be included
} in a future 'official' patch, or should we just do it by hand?

It will be included in the next patch, which I will post today (probably in
just a few minutes).

In article <116@borabora.omni.com> bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) writes:
} IN   mush 6.5 patched patchlevel 5
} IF   you don't have a ~/.mushuser
} AND   you use the default Mushrc
} THEN   you get a segmentation fault when mush attempts to print the
}   prompt in the line in Mushrc which reads:  echo -p "\n${prompt}expert\n"

Yes, there are two bugs there: first, "echo -p" shouldn't be so stupid as
to work before there is a mailfile; and second, I shouldn't have been so
stupid as to use echo -p in Mushrc.

Both are fixed in the patch going out today.
-- 
Bart Schaefer           "And if you believe that, you'll believe anything."
                                                            -- DangerMouse
CSNET / Internet                schaefer@cse.ogc.edu
UUCP                            ...{sequent,tektronix,verdix}!ogccse!schaefer