"Adam D. Barratt" <[email protected]> writes: > Unfortunately this appears to have broken some valid occurences of > architecture lists in dependency fields; I had a similar issue when I > tried to make the expression "smarter" before committing the earlier > version.
Sigh. Regexes really, really want to match. We probably need to do what checks/fields does and actually parse the field rather than trying to use a regex to analyze it. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
