On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 11:36 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > Ah sorry, I didn't read your (b) properly, now I see last sentence about > "longest substring". > > But that's mostly what reverse sorted patch does now, isn't it? Longer > patterns are replaced before their shorter substrings (which then > matches only to their proper packages, because longer were already > replaced while handling longer pattern and "normally" doesn't match > anymore).
Yeah, I think that's probably true. I haven't managed to convince myself entirely that the reverse sorting patch is safe in all situations, but neither have I been able to think of a case that my algorithm would get right and yours would get wrong. So I think you might as well go ahead and check in your patch, and we can revisit it in the future if further problems do pop up. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
