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
next time, please remember to build it.
there's a reason do-build checks the syntax of those perl files.