Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Bruce A. Mah
If memory serves me right, Jeremy Lea wrote: > On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote: > > /usr/sbin/pkg_version Jeremy Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - re > > OK, the first revision is attached. It appears to work for me... It > needs some spit and polish, and probably a f

Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 02:50:39PM +0200, Jeremy Lea wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote: > > /usr/sbin/pkg_version Jeremy Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - re > > OK, the first revision is attached. It appears to work for me... It > needs some spit and p

Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Jeremy Lea wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:19:29PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > > +++ version/perform.c 14 May 2002 12:41:41 - > > [...] > > + strlcpy(tmp, PORTS_DIR, PATH_MAX); > > + strlcat(tmp, "/INDEX", PATH_MAX); > > > > I'd suggest snprintf(3) > > Yeah

Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Jeremy Lea
Hi, On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:19:29PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > +++ version/perform.c 14 May 2002 12:41:41 - > [...] > + strlcpy(tmp, PORTS_DIR, PATH_MAX); > + strlcat(tmp, "/INDEX", PATH_MAX); > > I'd suggest snprintf(3) Yeah. Like I said, it needs a bit of polishing

Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Jeremy Lea wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote: > > /usr/sbin/pkg_version Jeremy Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - re > > OK, the first revision is attached. It appears to work for me... It > needs some spit and polish, and probably a few more people to test

Re: pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Mark Murray
> OK, the first revision is attached. It appears to work for me... It > needs some spit and polish, and probably a few more people to test. > > I've not implemented the -d flag since it sort of became unneeded, and > it's not really the way things are done in the rest of pkg_*. I've also > not

pkg_version in C [was: Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!]

2002-05-14 Thread Jeremy Lea
Hi, On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote: > /usr/sbin/pkg_version Jeremy Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - re OK, the first revision is attached. It appears to work for me... It needs some spit and polish, and probably a few more people to test. I've not implemented the -d flag

Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!

2002-05-12 Thread Mark Murray
> Hi, > > > On Thu, 09 May 2002 20:33:22 +0100 > > Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > mark> /usr/sbin/scriptdump > > This script is from KAME. It seems that NetBSD doesn't install it. > Is someone actually using it? If okay, I'll change to don't install > it. That sounds good

Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!

2002-05-11 Thread Mark Murray
> On Thursday 09 May 2002 02:33 pm, Mark Murray wrote: > > Hi > > > > The response to the perl-script rewriting project has been > > very hearteningly _fantastic_! > > > > Here is the list as it stands. The gaps are fairly obvious (and > > probably mostly not critical in the short term): > > > > /

Re: Perl scripts that need rewriting - Progress!

2002-05-10 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
Hi, > On Thu, 09 May 2002 20:33:22 +0100 > Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: mark> /usr/sbin/scriptdump This script is from KAME. It seems that NetBSD doesn't install it. Is someone actually using it? If okay, I'll change to don't install it. Sincerely, -- Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Inter