On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 08:15:46AM -0600, Matthew Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:16:03AM +, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:04:06AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:53:04AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > > next time, please remember t
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:16:03AM +, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:04:06AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:53:04AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > next time, please remember to build it.
> > > there's a reason do-build checks the syntax of those p
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:16:03AM +, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:04:06AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:53:04AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > next time, please remember to build it.
> > > there's a reason do-build checks the syntax of those p
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:04:06AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:53:04AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > next time, please remember to build it.
> > there's a reason do-build checks the syntax of those perl files.
>
> morning brainfart, of course it built. Which begs the quest
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:53:04AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> next time, please remember to build it.
> there's a reason do-build checks the syntax of those perl files.
morning brainfart, of course it built. Which begs the question how come the
syntax check didn't get it