Re: Broken code in checks/binaries
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 06:45:52PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Obviously line 133 is never reached because 131 already matches such
>>> paths. And return 1 seems to be wrong thing to do for line 133
>>> anyway. What is line 133 supposed to do?
>> return 0 and be above all of the rest, I think. Good catch. I wonder
> Not "next" instead of "return"?
Oh, duh, yes, that would make more sense. Hm, I get the feeling I didn't
think about that modification at all.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: