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

looks like I have some parts to rewrite :), i'll check it soon, thanks
a lot.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 07:26:07PM +1200, Richard Toohey wrote:
> 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.