[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#18620: closed (25.0.50; cfengine3-make-syntax-cach

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#18620: closed (25.0.50; cfengine3-make-syntax-cache)
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:04:01 +0000

Your message dated Thu, 09 Oct 2014 00:03:29 +0800
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#18620: 25.0.50; cfengine3-make-syntax-cache
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #18620,
regarding 25.0.50; cfengine3-make-syntax-cache
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

18620: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=18620
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 25.0.50; cfengine3-make-syntax-cache Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 18:28:22 +0800
There are multiple problems with cfengine3-make-syntax-cache:

1. call-process-shell-command changed in trunk; simply replace it with

2. it doesn't always return a `syntax' value

3. cf-promises doesn't have -s option in Centos 6.5 (cfengine 3.3)


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#18620: 25.0.50; cfengine3-make-syntax-cache Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 00:03:29 +0800 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (CentOS 6.5)
On 2014-10-08 09:51 -0400, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 11:22:46 +0800 Leo Liu <address@hidden> wrote: 
[snipped 9 lines]
> I like your patch better :)
> Can you commit or let me know and I will?  It will close this ticket, I
> hope.

OK, I am committing the patch (it's been 30 minutes, it hurts when it is
this slow). I have discovered a few other issues and fixed them along
the way. If you have time could you test it to make sure I don't break
something else.

[snipped 12 lines]
> CFEngine 3 was a rewrite of version 2. It's still under the GPL but no
> longer part of the GNU project AFAIK. IMO it's quite good (the latest
> release is 3.6.2) and it's actively maintained by CFEngine Inc, but the
> proprietary non-free extensions in their Enterprise version and the
> corporate ownership of the codebase make it unlikely it can be part of
> the GNU project in this incarnation.
> Ted

I'll take your word for it ;) Thanks for the info.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]