On Sat, 10 Nov 2018, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> In the interest of moving conversations about what character SHOULD be used
> as a separator for DistTag, I point you at the PCRE regex that has been in
> use for almost a decade here.
>
> http://rpm5.org/cvs/fileview?f=rpm/macros/macros.in&v=1.39.2.52
>
> See the 2 (one commented out) definitions of %evr_tuple_match. Both PCRE's as
> written assume a ':' separator for both Epoch and DistTag.
So, that's an interesting coincidence that independemtly from you I
suggested the same separator/format! I believe this can be viewed as an
indication that it is nice.
> One can change the PCRE to use a '.' or '-' or '/' or whatever character one
> wishes to separate the serial representation of the tuple {E,V,R,D} (or T if
> twiddle-in-version is desired) that is desired.
>
> So far no one has mentioned the added SuSE inspired twiddle-in-version
> parsing that is also necessary to handle in dependency strings if DistTag is
> handled.
I wanted to be concise about the main ideas and not write too much in one
message.
> All of the pseudo-regexes mentioned in this issue are incomplete. The PCRE I
> have pointed out can be used with pcregrep to do try-and-see experimentation
> with various representations of EVR if DistTag is added.
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Ivan
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/589#issuecomment-437638531_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
