Florian Festi wrote:
Hi!
While creating the new test frame work I came across several minor
issues. One problem is the existence of the
RPMDBPackageSack.installed() method. It is currently only supported by
the RPMDBPackageSack class. This doesn't allow to replace the rpmdb
with an inmemory
Florian Festi wrote:
Hi!
More testing fun:
The .whatProvides() method is provided by the RpmSack only. In fact
that method should be used anymore anyway. And - ta ta - I still had
some patches fixing that issue. It also moves the cheaterlookup to
contain package objects insted of pkgtups.
Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
Florian Festi wrote:
Hi!
While creating the new test frame work I came across several minor
issues. One problem is the existence of the
RPMDBPackageSack.installed() method. It is currently only supported
by the
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
The problem with installed() is just that it's the wrong term for this -
make it exists() and it'll make sense for all the package sack types.
Whether a package is installed or not is just a question whether it exists
in rpmdb
Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
The problem with installed() is just that it's the wrong term for
this - make it exists() and it'll make sense for all the package
sack types. Whether a package is installed or not is just a question
It doesn't make any sense to me. Note that there is only x86_64
alsa-lib-devel, it doesn't seem to be a multilib issue.
Transaction Check Error:
file
/usr/share/doc/alsa-lib-devel-1.0.14/doxygen/html/_2test_2latency_8c-example.html
from install of alsa-lib-devel-1.0.14-3.fc7 conflicts
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:23 +0200, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
The problem with installed() is just that it's the wrong term for
this - make it exists() and it'll make sense for all the package
sack
Hi!
While I would prefer to have one single Sack API that can be consistently
used throughout the whole code base, I guess I just add the installed()
method to a new TestRpmSack class which will be a direct subclass of
PackageSack. While duplicating classes for the test frame work introduces
seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 12:07 +0200, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
Florian Festi wrote:
Hi!
More testing fun:
The .whatProvides() method is provided by the RpmSack only. In fact
that method should be used anymore anyway. And - ta ta - I still had
some patches fixing that
seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:23 +0200, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
The problem with installed() is just that it's the wrong term for
this - make it exists() and it'll make
I you want then i will reverse the patch ?
I = if :)
Tim
___
Yum-devel mailing list
Yum-devel@linux.duke.edu
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 16:50 +0200, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
I you want then i will reverse the patch ?
I = if :)
Still debating this. On the one hand I think someone using cheaterlookup
on their own is pretty unlikely. OTOH who knows what sort of bizarre
crap someone might be doing. What does
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:58 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 16:50 +0200, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
I you want then i will reverse the patch ?
I = if :)
Still debating this. On the one hand I think someone using cheaterlookup
on their own is pretty unlikely. OTOH who knows
13 matches
Mail list logo
