On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:54:23AM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
>
> > And now, some hate for developers. Sorry in advance for our
> > non-C-fluent readers.
> > [...]
>
> I'm pretty sure that's a C hate, not an RPM hate. Yes, it's true, RPM does
> u
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:41:47PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * David Cantrell [2006-03-14 11:50]:
> >On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:07:17PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >> That is a fine theory, except so many webapps would cease to
> >> work (yes, they're hateful; no, that doesn't mean Firefox can
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> And now, some hate for developers. Sorry in advance for our
> non-C-fluent readers.
> [...]
I'm pretty sure that's a C hate, not an RPM hate. Yes, it's true, RPM does
use C, so it's to blame, too, of course.
--
The whole secret of life is to b
And now, some hate for developers. Sorry in advance for our
non-C-fluent readers.
Somewhere in the rpm library headers, up to version 4.4.4, you have
this nice typedef:
typedef void * (*rpmCallbackFunction)
(/*...@null@*/ const void * h,
const rpmCallbackType what,
