Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Bruce A. Mah
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

Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Kris Kennaway
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

Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Maxim Sobolev
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

Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Jeremy Lea
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

Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Maxim Sobolev
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

Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Mark Murray
> 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