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