On 14/06/11 09:48, Dan McGee wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 11/06/11 07:18, Dan McGee wrote:
We don't actually have any python scripts anymore I just realized... I'll kill the cruft in another patch.
I have a patch for that but was deciding what to do with it... Maybe this should be kept in case we do get a python (or other language) script as a template for how to deal with it. If you got the patch, go ahead and throw it in your working branch whenever- I'd take the axe to it; if we need to bring it back git history is always there for us.
A bunch of stuff should be pushed there in the next few days. There are some advantages of being stuck in hospital! I'll add that patch to it.
maybe a local scriptname="@@SCRIPTNAME@@" once here to avoid scattering it all over the place?
OK. Not that it really matters give it is all one sed to replace it. Yeah, I don't know why my gut says to do it this way- I guess just the less magic the better, and for most of these kind of replacements we try to do it this way. It also prevents silly mistakes like including @@dasfsdf@@ in a gettext-ized string.
My gut is saying to go the other way. :P Anyway, I'll really have no objection either way so I will change it. Allan