If memory serves me right, Jeremy Lea wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote:
> > /usr/sbin/pkg_version Jeremy Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - re
>
> OK, the first revision is attached. It appears to work for me... It
> needs some spit and polish, and probably a f
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 02:50:39PM +0200, Jeremy Lea wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote:
> > /usr/sbin/pkg_version Jeremy Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - re
>
> OK, the first revision is attached. It appears to work for me... It
> needs some spit and p
Jeremy Lea wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:19:29PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >
> > +++ version/perform.c 14 May 2002 12:41:41 -
> > [...]
> > + strlcpy(tmp, PORTS_DIR, PATH_MAX);
> > + strlcat(tmp, "/INDEX", PATH_MAX);
> >
> > I'd suggest snprintf(3)
>
> Yeah
Hi,
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:19:29PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> +++ version/perform.c 14 May 2002 12:41:41 -
> [...]
> + strlcpy(tmp, PORTS_DIR, PATH_MAX);
> + strlcat(tmp, "/INDEX", PATH_MAX);
>
> I'd suggest snprintf(3)
Yeah. Like I said, it needs a bit of polishing
Jeremy Lea wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote:
> > /usr/sbin/pkg_version Jeremy Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - re
>
> OK, the first revision is attached. It appears to work for me... It
> needs some spit and polish, and probably a few more people to test
> OK, the first revision is attached. It appears to work for me... It
> needs some spit and polish, and probably a few more people to test.
>
> I've not implemented the -d flag since it sort of became unneeded, and
> it's not really the way things are done in the rest of pkg_*. I've also
> not
