Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:03:09 +0000
From: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] What's the rationale behind the
	cmd-build-config.c restrictions?
Message-ID: <20050128160309.GA8656@suffields.me.uk>
Mail-Followup-To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
References: <87zmyu50ym.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org>
	<20050128141124.GD6045@suffields.me.uk>
	<87pszpvbb7.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87pszpvbb7.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Precedence: list
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0762595579=="
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2426
Lines: 86

--===============0762595579==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi"
Content-Disposition: inline


--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:10:52AM -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
>=20
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:46:41AM -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
> >>=20
> >> In cmd-build-config.c we have:
> >>=20
> >>     if (!arch_valid_config_name (config))
> >>       {
> >>         safe_printfmt (2, "%s: invalid config name (%s)\n",
> >>                        argv[0], config);
> >>         exit (2);
> >>       }
> >>=20
> >>     tree_root =3D arch_tree_root (0, dir, 0);
> >>=20
> >>     if (!tree_root)
> >>       {
> >>         safe_printfmt (2, "%s: not in project tree (%s)\n",
> >>                        argv[0], dir);
> >>         exit (1);
> >>       }
> >>=20
> >> What's the rationale behind these restrictions?
> >
> > Nothing relevant, it's a bug. It's a very old bug that should have
> > been fixed a long time ago.
>=20
> Do you have any idea if the fix is likely to be as simple as removing
> that bit, or are there probably other changes that would need to be
> made?

If you knock out that one then an invariant() call deeper in will trap
you. If you remove them both then it'll work. There's also a similar,
even more broken test in catcfg.

--=20
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB+mI9lpK98RSteX8RApCiAJsFzG+LWrRQ9Iip7dSRiXPJJ+fIyACePW4D
5nXICc4iz8blef2X7MmdRRg=
=isq7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--


--===============0762595579==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
--===============0762595579==--