On 12/01/2012 04:48 PM, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:26:31PM +0100, Kacper Kornet wrote:
But I've been just surprised that it is actually required by vim? Does
someone know the reason? For test I installed vim without vim-rt and it
seems to work. But maybe I'm missing someth
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> (aside)
> Good: The behavior is symmetric when permuted.
>
> The documentation states that $1/$2 are the number of pkg instances
> after the script is run. This isn't precise enough a definition
> when there is an ACID transaction with a 2phase commit
On Dec 1, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>
> I'm inclined atm to prefer the above actual behavior to "fudging" an
> extra +1 for "legacy compatible" behavior; I'm sure we disagree here.
>
> Short answer: patch in an extra +1 (there will be two code paths in need
> of patching, check
On Dec 1, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Both permutations are wrong, $1 and $2 should be 1 in both cases.
>>
>> [root@sith RPMS]# rpm -Uvh test-0.1-0.1.noarch.rpm
>> Preparing...###
>> [100%]
>> 1:test
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:26:31PM +0100, Kacper Kornet wrote:
> But I've been just surprised that it is actually required by vim? Does
> someone know the reason? For test I installed vim without vim-rt and it
> seems to work. But maybe I'm missing something.
I guess this requirement was added bef
On Dec 1, 2012, at 4:47 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>
>> Try each of the 2 order permutations.
>>
>> FWIW the behavior of triggers from already installed packages when both
>> Packages are in the same transaction
>> Has _NEVER_ been documented anywhe
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> Try each of the 2 order permutations.
>
> FWIW the behavior of triggers from already installed packages when both
> Packages are in the same transaction
> Has _NEVER_ been documented anywhere I am aware of precisely.
As I understand the docs, it shou
