On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:29:54PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> Seems to work! Any obvious problem with going that route?
No obvious problem, go for it.
It's purely a matter of preference. string.format is more python3, but
%-formatting is in line with what the logging module does. I'm
On 2017-05-15, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2017-05-15, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:18:22AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>>
>>> File "/home/vagrant/simple-cdd/simple_cdd/utils.py", line 207, in
>>> verify_file
>>> raise Fail("Invalid checksum for {}: expected
On 2017-05-15, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:18:22AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
>> File "/home/vagrant/simple-cdd/simple_cdd/utils.py", line 207, in
>> verify_file
>> raise Fail("Invalid checksum for {}: expected {}, got {}", absname,
>> hashsum,
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:25:06AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> >> > -prefix_len = 7 + len(env.get("DI_CODENAME")) #
> >> > dists/{DI_CODENAME}/
> >> > -relname = file[prefix_len:]
> >> > +separator = os.path.join('dists/',
> >> >
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:18:22AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> File "/home/vagrant/simple-cdd/simple_cdd/utils.py", line 207, in
> verify_file
> raise Fail("Invalid checksum for {}: expected {}, got {}", absname,
> hashsum, hasher.hexdigest())
> simple_cdd.exceptions.Fail:
>
On 2017-05-15, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:46:08AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
>> > -prefix_len = 7 + len(env.get("DI_CODENAME")) #
>> > dists/{DI_CODENAME}/
>> > -relname = file[prefix_len:]
>> > +separator =
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:18:22AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> I apparently get *two* tracebacks for the price of one:
Eek! Fail fails in failing. Let me fix it so it fails successfully.
Enrico
--
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini
On 2017-05-15, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:46:08AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> > I noticed that verify_file in simple_cdd/utils.py already throws Fail if
>> > something is wrong. I would get rid of the try/except block altogether,
>> > and just call verify_file.
>> I
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:46:08AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> > -prefix_len = 7 + len(env.get("DI_CODENAME")) #
> > dists/{DI_CODENAME}/
> > -relname = file[prefix_len:]
> > +separator = os.path.join('dists/',
> >
On 2017-05-15, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 09:58:12PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
>> Any chance you could review the urllib implementation that is in git
>> soonish? :)
>
> I've been adventurously busy, I hope it's not too late.
Thanks for the review! :)
> In
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 09:58:12PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> Any chance you could review the urllib implementation that is in git
> soonish? :)
I've been adventurously busy, I hope it's not too late.
In bfc0329060e262bfd889b5e40c32ad9099197dcb I have mixed feelings about
this, as it
On 2017-04-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2017-04-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> On 2017-04-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>>> On 2017-04-28, Enrico Zini wrote:
Would you like me to try and provide a version which uses urlretrieve?
>>>
>>> All these ideas sound good to
On 2017-04-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2017-04-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> On 2017-04-28, Enrico Zini wrote:
>>> Would you like me to try and provide a version which uses urlretrieve?
>>
>> All these ideas sound good to me, so please take a shot at it!
>
> Actually, being able to verify
On 2017-04-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2017-04-28, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> Would you like me to try and provide a version which uses urlretrieve?
>
> All these ideas sound good to me, so please take a shot at it!
Actually, being able to verify the checksums instead of relying on
timestamps
On 2017-04-28, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:26:13AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> Below is a crude implementation using python3-urllib3. Maybe it's good
>> enough.
>
> I would be tempted to rebase the download code on
> urllib.request.urlretrieve, because it avoids an
On 2017-04-28, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:26:13AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
>> I want to keep an eye to a patch that would be acceptible to the release
>> team for stretch at this point, so maybe only refactoring this new code
>> for a smaller, more readable diff would
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:26:13AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> I want to keep an eye to a patch that would be acceptible to the release
> team for stretch at this point, so maybe only refactoring this new code
> for a smaller, more readable diff would be best.
> Below is a crude
Any review, refactoring, etc. would be great!
I want to keep an eye to a patch that would be acceptible to the release
team for stretch at this point, so maybe only refactoring this new code
for a smaller, more readable diff would be best.
On 2017-04-25, Enrico Zini wrote:
> simple-cdd
18 matches
Mail list logo