But all in all I think that cft would be an amazing tool to have, and I think it is worth the trouble to get going!
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:13 PM, David Lutterkort <lutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 13:07 -0600, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> I am a python guy myself, but I will try to take a look. I really
> like what you are doing with cft and would hate to see the concept
> die. You don't know if there is a similar function in ralsh?
No, ralsh doesn't do that; cft requires some more intimate knowledge of
the system (e.g., it takes a snapshot of the rpm DB at the start of a
session, and tracks file changes using fam/inotify)
It just occurred to me that it might be possible to sidestep the whole
ruby-rpm issue by shelling out to rpm - that might be an easier way to
resurrect cft than fixing the ruby-rpm bindings.
David
_______________________________________________ et-mgmt-tools mailing list et-mgmt-tools@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
