2013/8/26 Jeffrey Johnson <n3...@me.com> > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > > 2013/8/26 Jeffrey Johnson <n3...@me.com> > >> >> On Aug 26, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: >> >> > The following patch fixes querying rpmdb with wildcards, whereas >> without this fix, it'll return all entries and not just those matching. >> > >> >> The issue of wildcard queries is/was discussed years ago when >> implemented, and the behavior >> implemented is/was as decided (for "legacy compatible" and "principle of >> least surprise" reasons) >> at the time. >> >> Discuss the feature, providing explicit usage cases and tests, under the >> existing CI framework >> if you wish the patch applied "upstream" @rpm5.org. I need to see >> "consensus", not "de facto", >> before enabling "wild hacks" (other than my own) in RPM releases. >> > We actually discussed this one quite a while a ago, where you acknowledged > it yourself (the regression were introduced here: > http://rpm5.org/cvs/chngview?cn=16299 ) > > > Everyone's opinions -- including mine -- change with experience. > > Expecting me to remember and be consistent with a patch > from 2y ago that you claim is/was related to > rpm -qa \*foo\* > "regression" from a "wildcard" behavior that has never been specified, > only de facto, > when there are other non-feature related behaviors that are often in need > of fixing > is unwise. > > The issue that needs consensus is whether > rpm -qa \*foo\* > is useful, particularly when there are other designed/planned/implemented > implicit switches to permit > rpm -qa "^.*foo.*" > > i.e. your trivial reproducer is already a malformed *RE pattern, rather > a sloppy/foolish DWIM naive fuzz-busting query. > > There already is a means > Other and more efficient means are rather irrelevant in this context...
The undeniable fact is that the existing and expected behaviour changed in changeset #16299 due to what seems like an apparent coding mistake, breaking usage of 'rpm -qa \*foo\*' as is used by many (whether it being inefficient, better ways exists or not etc. is really besides the point as educating end users about habits goes beyond the scope of the discussion and bug fix here), making it hard to dismiss as not being a regression that should be fixed.. Luser will only notice what's expected and used to work, no longer working, blissfully ignorant and careless about what you debate and reject this patch based on.. -- Regards, Per Øyvind
