On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:50:17 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:33:49 +0100, Thomas Jost <schnouki@schnouki.net> wrote:
> > Hello list,
> > 
> > This is another rebased version of Pieter's series to add GPG and Emacs as test
> > prereqs, plus some additions on my own. (Rebased and posted as requested by
> > Pieter [1].)
> > 
> 
> Thanks Thomas!
> 
> Although... you may have misread (or maybe I mistyped :), but what I
> actually intended [1] was for you to rebase *only* your fixes on top of
> my rebased series (e.g. see "tjost-fixes.patch" in att), so you could
> receive proper credit for cleaning up my mess.

Oh, ok, I must have misread that :) 

Right now your patches don't apply cleanly on master (conflict in patch
3 due to commit 5964a7), and I think that Dmitry's patches [1] may be a
better way to handle prereqs. So I probably won't send those patches
until we decide which approach is the way to go.

[1] id:"1321494986-18998-1-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com"

> Also, while my apprehension [2,3] re the inclusion of the SCREEN/DTACH
> prereq in patches #4,5,6 didn't have much merit (it's an all-or-nothing
> affair anyways), the issue [3] in patch #5 @ "Reply within emacs" still
> stands: `sed' will run unconditionally, and treat "EMACS" as an input
> file.  (see "sed-prereq-fix.patch" in att).

Nice catch with this sed issue. Looks like I need to be more careful
when replacing "OUTPUT" with "EMACS OUTPUT"...

Thanks,

-- 
Thomas/Schnouki