On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Victor Lowther victor.lowther@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2011 4:42 AM, "Tom Gundersen" teg@jklm.no wrote:
Victor,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Seblu seblu@seblu.net wrote:
You can see 2 patches.
[...]
Second fix bug: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23373
As you wrote the patched referenced int the FS, could I get your ACK on Seb's second patch (or an explanation if the change was intentional):
The change was intentional, but I did not know the original unquoted expansion was on purpose. Seb's patch is fine.
Thanks!
-t
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Tom Gundersen teg@jklm.no wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Victor Lowther victor.lowther@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2011 4:42 AM, "Tom Gundersen" teg@jklm.no wrote:
Victor,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Seblu seblu@seblu.net wrote:
You can see 2 patches.
[...]
Second fix bug: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23373
As you wrote the patched referenced int the FS, could I get your ACK on Seb's second patch (or an explanation if the change was intentional):
The change was intentional, but I did not know the original unquoted expansion was on purpose. Seb's patch is fine.
Thanks!
-t
PS I don't know if it was intentional or worked by accident. I think there are several such features, especially in the networking code. I think we should at some point document exactly what we support (in the code) and treat everything else as bugs.
Am 29.03.2011 19:26, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
I don't know if it was intentional or worked by accident. I think there are several such features, especially in the networking code. I think we should at some point document exactly what we support (in the code) and treat everything else as bugs.
It was intentional. This was a fix for a bug report once.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Thomas Bächler thomas@archlinux.org wrote:
Am 29.03.2011 19:26, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
I don't know if it was intentional or worked by accident. I think there are several such features, especially in the networking code. I think we should at some point document exactly what we support (in the code) and treat everything else as bugs.
It was intentional. This was a fix for a bug report once.
Interesting! Do you have a link?
2 points: - loadkeys can take more than one filename as argument.
- in code we have: for utf-x [[ $KEYMAP ]] && status "Loading Keyboard Map: $KEYMAP" /bin/loadkeys -q -u "$KEYMAP" and without [[ $KEYMAP ]] && status "Loading Keyboard Map: $KEYMAP" /bin/loadkeys -q $KEYMAP
I think we should at least have the same behaviour for the two.
Am 30.03.2011 01:08, schrieb Seblu:
It was intentional. This was a fix for a bug report once.
Interesting! Do you have a link?
arch-projects@lists.archlinux.org