I do not agree with that, one example: on Debian the package manager, apt, is based on the configuration specified in /etc/apt/sources.list. Depending on the installation method this file may be completely empty, or partially filled-up. It is possible to check if the file is empty and if entries are there. It is not possible to check if an entry is valid for a specific use since the repo URL does not specify anything about the content, especially since it is possible to setup a specific repo like what we do in oscar.
So we may need a warning mechanism when we check the apt configuration: "warning we do not find any online Debian repo" (it may be local) or "warning we do not find an OSCAR repo, based on specified URL" (but the user may use a repo we do not know with a URL that we cannot fully check). If i am not clear let me i can give more details. Regards Le vendredi 21 juillet 2006 05:15, Erich Focht a écrit : > I do understand that you have and need the states SUCCEED and FAIL, but > don't understand why a WARN is needed. Either the system is ready for > proceeding or it is not. This sanity check is actually doing a GO / NO GO > decision. For me there's no room in between. If you have a warning that > something _might_ go wrong, you should better fix it, and a warning is for > me a NO GO. -- Geoff ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
