Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %{expr:...} macro for parsing expressions (#817)

2019-08-21 Thread Panu Matilainen
Merged #817 into master. -- 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/pull/817#event-2572929323___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %{expr:...} macro for parsing expressions (#817)

2019-08-21 Thread Panu Matilainen
At the risk of setting precedent that makes users expect friendly error messages from rpm, I'll keep it. It's just a cosmetical thing in any case and can be removed without other risk or harm if it turns out to be overly problematic. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %{expr:...} macro for parsing expressions (#817)

2019-08-21 Thread Panu Matilainen
Yes, I'm sure you can construct arbitrary cases where it's not going to point to the right place. Making the expression error reports *perfect* is not in the scope of this PR, so either I rip the marker support out or we leave it the way it is. -- You are receiving this because you are

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %{expr:...} macro for parsing expressions (#817)

2019-08-21 Thread pavlinamv
It is definitely better. I tried a multiline expression: ``` rpm --eval '%{expr: 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 |o| 0}' ``` and **'^'** does not point to the expected position: ``` +error: syntax error while parsing ||: 0 || 0 || + 0 || 0 |o| 0 +error:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild output is garbled (#794)

2019-08-21 Thread Panu Matilainen
Closed #794 via 3a510926449f1dd779a2933dfaa17de3d03a4ea4. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Restore strict order of build scriptlet stdout/stderr output (#794) (#818)

2019-08-21 Thread Panu Matilainen
Merged #818 into master. -- 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/pull/818#event-2572724130___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Restore strict order of build scriptlet stdout/stderr output (#794) (#818)

2019-08-21 Thread Panu Matilainen
Okay this is not going to get any better sitting here. @hroncok , thanks for testing. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %{expr:...} macro for parsing expressions (#817)

2019-08-21 Thread Panu Matilainen
And now with improved expression error messages in both specs and macros. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Prefer '[] && []' to '[ -a ]' and '[] || []' to '[ -o ]' in tests (#810)

2019-08-21 Thread Panu Matilainen
Merged #810 into master. -- 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/pull/810#event-2572687837___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Prefer '[] && []' to '[ -a ]' and '[] || []' to '[ -o ]' in tests (#810)

2019-08-21 Thread Panu Matilainen
The checks are failing due to not rebasing to get the "rawhide workaround" in place. The commit message is still unnecessarily hard to read but I give up. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %{expr:...} macro for parsing expressions (#817)

2019-08-21 Thread pavlinamv
> The error messages are simply the same as you get from spec %if conditionals, > there are no messages added / changed in this PR. That's not to say the > messages couldn't maybe be improved, but any change needs to account for the > fact that they're shared between two quite different