Tim,
please, can you review the patch http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/attachment.cgi?id=792 for bug 1180? http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1180
From my point of view is correct. But I do not know if it does not interfere with SAK idea?
Slavek --
Tim,
please, can you review the patch http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/attachment.cgi?id=792 for bug 1180? http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1180
From my point of view is correct. But I do not know if it does not interfere with SAK idea?
Slavek
As SAK support is a module and can therefore have its build disabled, your patch is correct. There is no sense attempting to talk to a daemon that is not only not running, but does not even exist on the user's system.
Tim
On Wednesday 22 of August 2012 19:43:47 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Tim,
please, can you review the patch http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/attachment.cgi?id=792 for bug 1180? http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1180
From my point of view is correct. But I do not know if it does not interfere with SAK idea?
Slavek
As SAK support is a module and can therefore have its build disabled, your patch is correct. There is no sense attempting to talk to a daemon that is not only not running, but does not even exist on the user's system.
Tim
Thank you, pushed to GIT
Slavek --
-
Slávek Banko -
Timothy Pearson