On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:29:11 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:57:34PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:56:08 +0300
> > Petteri Räty wrote:
> > > Ok. So people should then be using has_version in pkg_info if they
> > > want to detect if it's installed
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:57:34PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:56:08 +0300
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Ok. So people should then be using has_version in pkg_info if they
> > want to detect if it's installed or not?
>
> If they absolutely totally need to detect that, then
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:56:08 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ok. So people should then be using has_version in pkg_info if they
> want to detect if it's installed or not?
If they absolutely totally need to detect that, then yes.
Generally pkg_info should just try to display as much useful
informatio
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Still trying to stick to one subthread per item here.
>
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:27:41 +0300
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>>> * PKG-INFO
>> query. I have probably missed what's the use case for non installed
>> packages?
>
> For some packages, when a bug report for a failed bui
Still trying to stick to one subthread per item here.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:27:41 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> > * PKG-INFO
>
> query. I have probably missed what's the use case for non installed
> packages?
For some packages, when a bug report for a failed build is submitted,
there are a load
