On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 03:52:55PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On checking this patch a little further, I see that it gives a >>misleading "OK" when the package file is missing. Could you detect >>that case? > >Yes. The attached patch (against the initial one applied) does just >that.
I've checked this in, too, with some changes. The version of this file in CVS had my fix to convert slashes to backslashes so your patch didn't cleanly apply. I also allocated a static buffer and only calculated the DOS pathname for gzip.exe once. Finally, I changed all of the formatting to GNU-style. Thanks for this increased functionality. I used this to update my own installation. It looks like I had somehow damaged my installation a while ago. Some files were missing, some package lists were missing. Who knew? cgf
