The username_tab_completion() function taken from busybox-0.46 was
just a stub, it contained basically nothing. Chris himself wrote
the function in November 2000 (commit be77c611), and rewrote it in
January 2001 (commit 2c2c5f21).
The version of username_tab_completion() in that latter commit looks
somewhat like the version of Vladimir N. Oleynik <dzo@simtreas.ru>
(busybox commit 4e338757). That commit comes three days after Chris'
commit, but Vladimir's original email is from a week earlier:
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2001-January/035687.html.
So... it is quite possible that Rocco saw that email and suggested
to Chris to rewrite username_tab_completion() using getpwent().
Anyway, the version that was taken from busybox-0.46 was just four
lines and thus not worthy of copyright. The two other functions
that were copied were heavily modified in 2000, so it's better to
add that year in the copyright notice. It is fine to tweak the
notice: it just says that the original authors must be attributed,
not that the exact text must remain unchanged.
Instead of first trying to match things, and then discarding these
matches when the cursor is not at the end of the offered fragment
('buf'), simply don't bother to do any matching in that case.
The variable is set to zero at its declaration, and the second function
is called only when the first is either not called or found nothing --
thus '*num_matches' will still be zero.
Having the M-F toggle non-persistent, makes the behavior of ^R
predictable. This allows string binds that load a file to work
correctly independently of when M-F was last pressed.
The -F/--multibuffer command-line option and "set multibuffer"
in a nanorc file determine the default behavior of ^R.
Signed-off-by: Marco Diego Aurélio Mesquita <marcodiegomesquita@gmail.com>
Each listing of a name is preceeded by a call to wmove(), so there
is no need for an initial wmove(). And after writing "more" on the
bottom row of the edit window, the loop is terminated, so there is
no need to check that this is the first item on the bottom row.
And when the margin changes (when line numbers are switched on or off,
or when the buffer grows or shrinks), and when a piece of text from a
different buffer with a different margin is pasted.
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58517.
Bug existed since commit 9a9f36fc from yesterday.
Instead of storing for each line the ordinal number of the first chunk
in that line, simply store the number of extra chunks in the line.
It now takes some more computation to actually draw the scrollbar, but
it saves a lot of computation when just inserting or deleting characters
(when using --softwrap and causing a change in chunk count).
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58510.
Bug existed since commit 6bccedb3 from two days ago.
Make the "Execute Command" menu accessible also with a single keystroke
(^T), not just with a double one (^R^X). This is useful, because no one
will suspect that "Execute Command" can be found behind "Read File".
To not disturb muscle memory too much for people who are used to ^T
invoking the Spell Checker, a second ^T will invoke it.
Instead of creating a special Tools menu, add the five functions that
affect the whole buffer to the "Execute Command" menu. There is room
for these five functions there, and they kind of fit in because three
of them (Speller, Linter, and Formatter) actually invoke an external
command, and Full Justify could have been implemented externally, and
the destructive Cut Till End ought to have required a double keystroke
since the beginning.
Also, do not prompt when there is no space left on the device,
because then trying to save the actual file would likely lead
to truncating it, resulting in an empty file.
Only when fclose() is called, does the data get flushed out to disk,
and maybe only then the system realizes that there is no space left on
the device, as Chris noted in: https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?24000.
When asking this question when deleting fails or writing fails,
it should be asked too when creating fails. Otherwise the user
is blocked from saving the file -- until she realizes that maybe
toggling off backups would help.
If the user answered "No" or "Cancel" the first time, they should
be allowed to answer "Yes" the next time -- possibly after fixing
the necessary permissions in another terminal.
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58442.
Bug existed since version 2.3.0, commit 3d411188.
Access control lists can permit read and write access to a file
but not permit to manipulate any attributes of the file. So it
is quite possible for futimens() to fail, just like chown() and
chmod() can fail, but this should be no cause for alarm: as long
as writing the backup file worked, then writing the file itself
will probably work too.
First, it is very unlikely that chmod() would fail as the user just
created the file herself. Second, even if chmod() would fail, this
is not a problem, because we have created the file with read+write
permissions for the owner only, so the file cannot accidentally be
left accessible to unintended others.
But most of all, such a failure should not stop nano from trying to
write the backup file. Only when the actual *writing* fails, should
we bother the user with a prompt.
If there are still systems where mkstemp() creates world-readable
temporary files, then please holler. On current BSDs and on GNU,
I've verified that mkstemp() creates files with 0600 permissions.
When deleting an existing backup file failed, we do not want to
append to this file, but want instead to overwrite it (when the
user has put 'set allow_insecure_backup' in their nanorc file).
Also, when using O_EXCL (in the normal, secure case), O_APPEND
is pointless, because the file will be created and thus empty.
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58439.
Bug existed since version 2.2.5, commit 461519cc.
A normal user can change the group of a file (if the user is a member
of that group), but cannot change the owner of that file. So, when a
user edits a file that belongs to a different user, the call of fchown()
will fail. But there is no harm in that. Also when the user is root,
there is no harm in fchown() failing -- it will simply mean that the
backup file will remain owned by root and will not be writable by the
intended owner (when root has the normal umask of 0022).
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58383.
Bug existed since version 2.2.5, commit 86be3af7.
If unlinking would fail because the parent directory is unwritable,
then a check in has_valid_path() would have prevented do_lockfile()
from being called at all.
If in between the unlink() in delete_lockfile() and the fopen() in
write_lockfile() some other process creates a symlink in the place
of the lock file, then the fopen() could unexpectedly overwite a
root-owned file (when the user is root).
This basically reverts the previous commit, b4299f4f, but makes the
code a bit conciser.
One microsecond earlier, the lock file has been deleted (if it existed),
so, if between our unlink() and our open() some other process managed to
recreate the lock file... well, we want to delete it *again*. So, just
overwrite and truncate the lock file (if it exists).
When the lock file did NOT exist (a few microseconds earlier, when
checking in do_lockfile(), before calling write_lockfile()), then
the user expects the lock file to be written, so: just write it.
That between the check and the actual writing of the lock file there
is a small window of opportunity for other processes to write this
lock file is unfortunate, but it is not a reason to bother the user
with an error message when it happens.
One microsecond before a lock file is created an existing lock file
has been deleted, and if that deletion failed, writing the lock file
is aborted. So why should writing the lock file not be aborted when
the lock file cannot be exclusively created one microsecond later?
This makes no sense. So... always include the O_EXCL flag, also
when the INSECURE_BACKUP flag is set.
(And anyway: lock files are not an essential part of editing, they
are just a small service to the user, AND they have nothing to do
with backups, so a backup flag should not influence them.)
A file is always in either Unix or DOS or Mac format, and should
by default be saved again in that same format.
Any lone CRs or LFs after the first line should not change the
format that was deduced from that very first line.
Only when a CR is seen before any LF, and the CR is not followed
by a LF, should this CR be interpreted as a line separator. And
only then the file should be reported as being in Mac format --
as long as --noconvert is not used.
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58357.
Bug existed since at least version 2.0.6.
