From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnt Karlsen Subject: Re: problem with ./runme in --batch mode. -- current p-o-m Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 00:38:07 +0100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20030111003807.276f2728.arnt@c2i.net> References: <200301092244.09844.Alistair@nerdnet.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200301092244.09844.Alistair@nerdnet.ca> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 22:44:09 -0500, Alistair Tonner wrote in message <200301092244.09844.Alistair@nerdnet.ca>: > > Hi folks: > > Its too late at night, and I shouldn't be mucking with scripts. > ... I realize now that my previous email was in error ... and > now realize what is actually happening when passing a long list to > ./runme ... its just disconcerting to see patches that I don't want in > the "already applied" list that ./runme spits up when running in batch > mode ... I can now see that the $EXCLUDED are copied to $SEEN and > listed in already applied list because of that ... > > perhaps we could put a *bypassed* tag in there so that others don't > get as confused as I..... ..on finishing a batch run, it would be nice finding a batch run log somewhere, to ease my confusion some, on what works and not. ..does anyone run p-o-m from rpmbuild at all? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.