Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies
From: Patrick Donnelly <batrick () batbytes com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:03:14 -0500
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:20 PM, David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:
I can summarize it thus: Strong dependencies: dependencies must exist and be run. Ron: dependencies must exist, whether or not they are run. Current situation: dependencies need not exist nor be run.
So do we want to change to the "Ron dependencies" (I'm fine with the name btw ;)? -- - Patrick Donnelly _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- error semantics of faulty dependencies Toni Ruottu (Jan 27)
- Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies David Fifield (Jan 31)
- Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies Ron (Feb 03)
- Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies Patrick Donnelly (Feb 03)
- Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies David Fifield (Feb 03)
- Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies Ron (Feb 03)
- Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies Patrick Donnelly (Feb 21)
- Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies Ron (Feb 03)
- Re: error semantics of faulty dependencies David Fifield (Jan 31)