Ignore this and my missing attachment. Eric will be sending a revised one.
On Jul 30, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Jo Rhett wrote: > Here is Eric's revisal of package checking for Portage. I don't know > if you want to consider these "in motion" for later patching, but > since we are all playing with trunk and nobody is using in production > (except for point-case-testing on our part) right? it might be > better to get these applied so that it's easy for Eric to do more > testing. YMMV. > > Note: doesn't include changes to do.c because I don't believe they > are necessary and it would appear that portage atoms will work if > specified. Eric will likely clue-by-four me shortly with verbose > output proving otherwise ... ;-) > > Note: this patch does allow a case for removing the packages, but > without PortagePackageList implemented it will fail. I'm sure that > as soon as the Check command and syntax are ironed out, he'll supply > one (one would seem to derive from the other very easily) > > -- > Jo Rhett > senior geek > > Silicon Valley Colocation > Support Phone: 408-400-0550 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-cfengine mailing list > [email protected] > https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cfengine -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 _______________________________________________ Bug-cfengine mailing list [email protected] https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cfengine
