Re: plus48.html - few glitches, mostly to do with "prevented"

On 14/09/2010, at 1:50 AM, Marc Espie wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:45:40PM +1200, Richard Toohey wrote:
>> Hi, all.
>>
>> Reading the 4.8 list and I don't understand exactly what a lot of these
are
>> trying to say ... maybe a search-and-replace gone wrong?
>>
>> Prevented pkg_add(1) update to silently ignore a pkgpath problem.
>
> No, that one is very technical, so if you haven't run into the problem
> and know what's going on it's not going to make sense.
>
Hi, Marc.

Thank you for the reply.

I was more confused by the English - "Prevented something to something"
is not correct.

> Most specifically, pkg_add finds candidates by looking at stem-* then
> checking that the pkgpath matches. It also needs some specific mechanism to
> silently ignore "older" packages and stuff that's already fully uptodate.
> The tests were a bit bogus, and not finding a matching package with correct
> pkgpath was lumped with "oh, older package found, no update needed" where
> it should say "hey, we found a correct stem-*, but no matching @pkgpath
> candidate, we should report that".


"Prevented pkg_add(1) update to silently ignore a pkgpath problem."

I think it should it be something like:

"Prevent[ed] pkg_add(1) update from silently ignoring a pkgpath problem."

(That's if I understood you correctly.)

Thanks.