On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 15:59 -0400, James Antill wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 15:46 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > yum list FOO BAR > > > > and FOO exists but BAR does not exist > > > > you'll end up with a success code. > > > > is that what we want? > > Maybe not, I chose that way because it was the easiest way out ... > working out the correct thing for each argument required a lot more code > changes.
And reporting that becomes less and less obvious in a single result code. Maybe we just return a bitmask - for each argument that failed/succeeded a 0 or a 1 :) And before anyone implements that, I'm kidding, bit masks are a pain to decipher for anyone who doesn't think that way (which is most people in the world) and are therefore a bad thing to unleash on users. > > /me hates partial failure result codes > > I can change it to fail if anything doesn't match, but it'll require a > dict for each argument ... and changing returnPkgLists() etc. Upto you. I'm mostly fine with it as it is - but I was concerned that what you implemented was what you actually intended. -sv _______________________________________________ Yum-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
