On 03/09/2010 12:43 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> I'll go ahead and push this if no one speaks up soon. >>> Rather than downloading and applying the patch, I ran the command >>> and committed as you. >> >> By "this", you mean patch 1/2, correct? I just want to make sure > > Yes. The one induced by the for loop command, > and whose header I quoted. > >> we don't make syntax-check dependent on a non-existent >> cppi package until we have a fallback plan. (My automated build >> testing does "make syntax-check", and I don't want it to fail >> every night now because cppi is not packaged) > > I wouldn't push the enforcement patch until I'm sure > it will pass (or skip) for everyone. Agreed. 1/2 is safe in isolation (although with nothing to enforce it, it will likely regress). I'm still working on my respin of 2/2; the respin will add: skipping the test with a non-fatal notice if 'cppi --version' fails framework for adding enforcement exceptions on a per-file basis -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list