zsh 5.0.8 available (preliminary announcement)

zsh 5.0.8 available (preliminary announcement)

[Peter Stephenson]

I've uploaded a 5.0.8 release to

http://www.zsh.org/pub/

Please could people have a quick check there's nothing major broken
before I announce it more widely.

Thanks for all the help, which has meant this has quite a lot fewer
glitches than 5.0.7.

pws

Re: zsh 5.0.8 available (preliminary announcement)

[Martijn Dekker]

Peter Stephenson schreef op 31-05-15 om 20:23:
> I've uploaded a 5.0.8 release to
> 
> http://www.zsh.org/pub/
> 
> Please could people have a quick check there's nothing major broken
> before I announce it more widely.

All the 'make check' tests are passing on my machine (Mac OS X 10.7 with
GCC version "i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Based on
Apple Inc. build 5658) (LLVM build 2336.11.00)".

It also looks like all the bugs I reported are fixed in this version.

> Thanks for all the help, which has meant this has quite a lot fewer
> glitches than 5.0.7.

Thanks for fixing them so promptly.

Suggestion: offer the archive in .xz compression format instead of .bz2.
It's superior to .bz2 in every way and pretty much everyone has it by
now (and if not, .gz is still a good fallback).

- M.

Re: zsh 5.0.8 available (preliminary announcement)

[Bart Schaefer]

On May 31,  7:23pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} Please could people have a quick check there's nothing major broken
} before I announce it more widely.

Passes "make check" on Ubuntu 12.04.5 and MacOS 10.9.5 (gnu tools).

Re: zsh 5.0.8 available (preliminary announcement)

[Baptiste Daroussin]

2015-06-01 2:17 GMT+02:00 Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>:
> On May 31,  7:23pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> }
> } Please could people have a quick check there's nothing major broken
> } before I announce it more widely.
>
> Passes "make check" on Ubuntu 12.04.5 and MacOS 10.9.5 (gnu tools).

On FreeBSD I have 5 tests failing (actually for a couple of release of
zsh) all related to zpty.

This time I found time to analyse the code.

It appears that freebsd has posix_openpt, but the code using that only
used if USE_DEV_PTMX is defined (which is not on FreeBSD)

Switching the #ifdef USE_DEV_PTMX line 157 to:

#if defined(HAVE_POSIX_OPENPT) || defined(USE_DEV_PTMX)


after doing that all tests passes.

regards,
Bapt

Re: zsh 5.0.8 available (preliminary announcement)

[Baptiste Daroussin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 887 bytes --]

2015-06-02 0:13 GMT+02:00 Baptiste Daroussin <baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com>:
> 2015-06-01 2:17 GMT+02:00 Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>:
>> On May 31,  7:23pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
>> }
>> } Please could people have a quick check there's nothing major broken
>> } before I announce it more widely.
>>
>> Passes "make check" on Ubuntu 12.04.5 and MacOS 10.9.5 (gnu tools).
>
> On FreeBSD I have 5 tests failing (actually for a couple of release of
> zsh) all related to zpty.
>
> This time I found time to analyse the code.
>
> It appears that freebsd has posix_openpt, but the code using that only
> used if USE_DEV_PTMX is defined (which is not on FreeBSD)
>
> Switching the #ifdef USE_DEV_PTMX line 157 to:
>
> #if defined(HAVE_POSIX_OPENPT) || defined(USE_DEV_PTMX)
>
>
> after doing that all tests passes.
>
> regards,
> Bapt

Here is the patch for this

regards,
Bapt

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Allow-to-use-the-get_pty-code-using-posix_openpt-on-.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 670 bytes --]

From aa2388c975b0e3741599f89358e5fa8e11f57e23 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:44:09 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Allow to use the get_pty code using posix_openpt on systems
 without /dev/ptmx

---
 Src/Modules/zpty.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Src/Modules/zpty.c b/Src/Modules/zpty.c
index 7b6130c..a77b0df 100644
--- a/Src/Modules/zpty.c
+++ b/Src/Modules/zpty.c
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ getptycmd(char *name)
     return NULL;
 }
 
-#ifdef USE_DEV_PTMX
+#if defined(USE_DEV_PTMX) || defined(HAVE_POSIX_OPENPT)
 
 #ifdef HAVE_SYS_STROPTS_H
 #include <sys/stropts.h>
-- 
2.4.2

Re: zsh 5.0.8 available (preliminary announcement)

[Oliver Kiddle]

Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On FreeBSD I have 5 tests failing (actually for a couple of release of
> zsh) all related to zpty.
> 
> This time I found time to analyse the code.
> 
> It appears that freebsd has posix_openpt, but the code using that only
> used if USE_DEV_PTMX is defined (which is not on FreeBSD)

USE_DEV_PTMX should get defined on FreeBSD. That define is just wrapping
up several tests. The branch guarded by USE_DEV_PTMX also requires other
functions like grantpt() so tests for those should continue to be
honoured even when we have posix_openpt().

With earlier versions of zsh and recent FreeBSD, it was necessary to use
"kldload pty" for zpty to work. That brings /dev/ptmx into existance. It
seems the configure tests are effectively still requiring that. I think
the approach in the following patch should work but I now need to find a
FreeBSD machine with the pty module unloaded to test it.

Is the -o option to test safe to use in configure? It seems existing
tests use || and && but the precedence of those wouldn't be right.

Oliver

diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index 6a99aec..d7db8ba 100644
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -2526,7 +2526,7 @@ dnl these is by defining _GNU_SOURCE.
 dnl -------
 AH_TEMPLATE([USE_DEV_PTMX],
 [Define to 1 if all the kit for using /dev/ptmx for ptys is available.])
-if test x$ac_cv_have_dev_ptmx = xyes && \
+if test x$ac_cv_have_dev_ptmx = xyes -o x$ac_cv_func_posix_openpt = xyes && \
    test x$ac_cv_func_grantpt = xyes && \
    test x$ac_cv_func_unlockpt = xyes && \
    test x$ac_cv_func_ptsname = xyes; then

Re: zsh 5.0.8 available (preliminary announcement)

[Peter Stephenson]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:06:20 +0200
Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Is the -o option to test safe to use in configure? It seems existing
> tests use || and && but the precedence of those wouldn't be right.

I think the definitive answer is "probably, who knows?"  configure has
been written to handle some very ancient implementations of test, but
the things it's more likely to fall down on are what happens with
confusing arguments (as zsh still sometimes does or did), which doesn't
apply here.  You might find better guidance in the autoconf
documentation if there's none in the existing code.

The ultra paranoid way to do it is nest the ifs...

if  test1 || test2; then
  if test3 && test4 && test5 ..; then
    stuff
    done_some_stuff=yes
  fi
fi
if test x$done_some_stuff != xyes; then
  alternative stuff
fi

I committed Baptiste's patch, it looks like you might want to back it
off.

pws

Re: zsh 5.0.8 available (preliminary announcement)

[Daniel Shahaf]

Oliver Kiddle wrote on Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:06:20 +0200:
> Is the -o option to test safe to use in configure? It seems existing
> tests use || and && but the precedence of those wouldn't be right.

I suppose most portable would be a subshell, since the requirements it
places on the 'test' command are minimal:

  +if ( test x$ac_cv_have_dev_ptmx = xyes || test x$ac_cv_func_posix_openpt = xyes ) && \

> -if test x$ac_cv_have_dev_ptmx = xyes && \
> +if test x$ac_cv_have_dev_ptmx = xyes -o x$ac_cv_func_posix_openpt = xyes && \