On 25 August 2017 at 23:13, Ken Hornstein <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>wrote:
[ ... send: --notls discussion removed ... ]
Binary files /home/jerry/code/nmh-1.7-RC3/test/testdir/21786.draft and
/home/jerry/code/nmh-1.7-RC3/test/testdir/21786.expected differ
That's ... interesting.
./test/mhbuild/test-attach: test failed, outputs are in
/home/jerry/code/nmh-1.7-RC3/test/testdir/21786.draft and
/home/jerry/code/nmh-1.7-RC3/test/testdir/21786.expected.
FAIL: test/mhbuild/test-attach
I think that might have been cleaned up. Could you do:
make check TESTS=test/mhbuild/test-attach
And then let us know what the files that it claimed were different actually
contained?
The difference was in the final section -
(9052.expected contains)
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="nulls"
Content-Description: nulls
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="nulls"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0--
(9052.draft contains):
Content-Type: binary/; name="nulls"
Um, wow. A Content-Type of binary/ ????
I am curious .... if you grep through config.status for the following
variables:
MIMETYPEPROC
MIMEENCODINGPROC
What do they return? It might be something like
file --brief --dereference --mime-type
And what happens when you run that command on the file test/mhbuild/nulls ?
Ken,
you were correct on what grep returns:
[jerry@unix nmh-1.7-RC3]$ grep MIMETYPEPROC config.status
D["MIMETYPEPROC"]=" \"file --brief --dereference --mime-type\""
[jerry@unix nmh-1.7-RC3]$ grep MIMEENCODINGPROC config.status
D["MIMEENCODINGPROC"]=" \"file --brief --dereference --mime-encoding\""
Then running the command:
[jerry@unix nmh-1.7-RC3]$ file --brief --dereference --mime-type
test/mhbuild/nulls
binary
--Ken
jerry
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers