On 15/04/12 20:10, John Dallaway wrote:
>
>>> Discouraging the use of what is known to be a problematic
>>> command seems entirely reasonable to me. I think you may be
>>> underestimating how useful the "Restore Defaults" command is to regular
>>> configtool users. Certainly I would not regard thi
Hi Jifl
Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> On 05/04/12 20:13, John Dallaway wrote:
>> Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>
> [Wanting to stop using set_value]
>
>>> Not really, no. Firstly, other targets use it. Secondly, the design
>>> intention
>>> for CDL is that targets should be defined by platform packages
On 05/04/12 21:25, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> On 05/04/12 20:13, John Dallaway wrote:
>> Given that the design intention is to use platform packages to define
>> targets, I don't understand why you would regard using a "set_value"
>> command (located outside the HAL package hierarchy) as being close
On 05/04/12 20:13, John Dallaway wrote:
> Jonathan Larmour wrote:
[Wanting to stop using set_value]
>> Not really, no. Firstly, other targets use it. Secondly, the design intention
>> for CDL is that targets should be defined by platform packages, albeit with
>> "requires" rather than "set_value".
[ continuing the discussion on CDL issues from bug #1001550 ]
Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> John Dallaway wrote:
>
> > The "set_value" keyword in ecos.db was introduced as a quick hack for use
> > within the Red Hat test farm and was never intended to be used elsewhere.
> > set_value will provide a
