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(a)redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library
http://libvirt.org