2009/6/6 Lucas C. Villa Real <luca...@gobolinux.org>: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:08 PM, <mohj...@svn.gobolinux.org> wrote: >> Author: mohjive >> Date: 2009-06-05 12:08:49 -0700 (Fri, 05 Jun 2009) >> New Revision: 4016 >> >> Modified: >> branches/015/Scripts/bin/GetAvailable >> Log: >> Do not require 'Current' for unpacked packages > > What about programs that have been disabled by DisableProgram? > I think you meant to comment on the previous commit, where I set the defaults for 'installed' to not require 'Current'. This commit above shouldn't matter since we do check for 'Current' and act accordingly a bit further up in the code which is not visible in this diff. Also unpacked local packages wont have a 'Current' link, so we cannot asume that if requireCurrent is not set that we're looking for a recipe.
For not requiring 'Current' for 'installed' I didn't think of DisableProgram, so yes this new behaviour is then broken. But I also think the old behaviour of requiring 'Current' to accept an application as installed is also broken, since we actually can have mutliple versions of a library/application installed at the same time and both/all cannot have the 'Current' link. Currently we are only loking for a 'Current' link, not that it points at the version we're interested in. Only for the type 'current' we're doing this and then we ignore all other versions. The issue is that while a library/application can be symlinked it doesn't necessarliy means that it's symlinked as 'Current' and at the same time there might not even exist a 'Current' symlink. What I'm after here is that we might need another way to find out if an application is symlinked or not, instead of just looking at the presence of 'Current' and maybe even following that link. -- /Jonas _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
