Bindings are nice, but it is always better to get functionality then polish later! I will have some time to look at the code later tonight of tomorrow, I will see what I can find. But all in all I think that cft would be an amazing tool to have, and I think it is worth the trouble to get going!
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:13 PM, David Lutterkort <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 13:07 -0600, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > > I am a python guy myself, but I will try to take a look. I really > > like what you are doing with cft and would hate to see the concept > > die. You don't know if there is a similar function in ralsh? > > No, ralsh doesn't do that; cft requires some more intimate knowledge of > the system (e.g., it takes a snapshot of the rpm DB at the start of a > session, and tracks file changes using fam/inotify) > > It just occurred to me that it might be possible to sidestep the whole > ruby-rpm issue by shelling out to rpm - that might be an easier way to > resurrect cft than fixing the ruby-rpm bindings. > > David > > >
_______________________________________________ et-mgmt-tools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
