Thanks for reporting, we'll look into it.
--
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/1386#issuecomment-705979947___
Merged #1388 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/1388#event-3858526116___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@pmatilai approved this pull request.
Nice, thanks!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai approved this pull request.
Third time the charm... Thanks for the patch and perseverance! :sweat_smile:
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@malmond77 pushed 1 commit.
7ae16d6bd37abdcc0430fbb1b25a0f821a60c234 Make fdSeek return 0 on success, -1
on error
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@malmond77 commented on this pull request.
> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static ssize_t fdWrite(FDSTACK_t fps, const void * buf,
> size_t count)
static int fdSeek(FDSTACK_t fps, off_t pos, int whence)
{
-return lseek(fps->fdno, pos, whence);
+return (lseek(fps->fdno, pos, whence)) == -1 ?
Oh, looking closer:
> @nim-nim wrote
> [...]
> exist because nil is not the same as false or empty
Yes, nil is not same as empty. It however very explicitly is same as false,
quoting https://www.lua.org/manual/5.4/manual.html#2.1:
> Both nil and false make a condition false; they are
Closed #1389.
--
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/1389#event-3855269660___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Sorry for the blurb, this was unintended
--
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/1389#issuecomment-705546522___
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1389
-- Commit Summary --
* Remove headers from man pages to get po4a working
* Add po4a subdirectory for man page translations
* Fix headers of man page po files
*
Add stringification for versions and error out for arithmetic operations.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1388
-- Commit Summary --
* Support stringification of versions in the expression parser
* Add
And none of us here would have the slightest clue as to what those fragments
are supposed to be doing and in what context. As I'm sure you know perfectly
well, the devil is in the details.
If you're not interested in testing and reviewing *this* implementation that's
fine, just don't come
I assume option without argument would be true while option with argument would
be string with its value?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Organize the stuff a little and fill in blanks
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1387
-- Commit Summary --
* Fix RPMTAG_SUGGESTVERSION and -FLAGS info, theyre not extensions
* Organize tag documentation to
@ignatenkobrain I bisected an rpmbuild regression to commit
acf5e00281d73a2f8034091241c7b0e2ba00e383
Before:
```console
$ ./rpmbuild -ts ~/src/python-bugzilla/dist/python-bugzilla-3.0.1.tar.gz && rpm
-qlp /home/crobinso/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-bugzilla-3.0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
Wrote:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/common.lua#_30
exists because nil is not the same as false lua-side.
And no I don’t remember out of hand all the problems it fixed. I definitely
*do* *not* want to remember them. Debugging the corner cases induced by the
@nim-nim, if there's a concrete problem with how testing for option presence is
handled here, lets hear it out. To me it seems to work exactly like one would
expect it to, but sorry ponies not included.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email
@pmatilai given lua was added as a macro language because the built-in
constructs were driving everyone crazy as soon as you needed some non-trivial
processing I don’t find this argument too convincing :)
Anyway lua has built-in conventions for booleans and nil values, you can’t dump
blindly
The Lua native arguments have to match those of non-Lua macros, otherwise
everybody goes crazy.
For more advanced use there will be that option to let the macro do its own
processing.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it
@hroncok from the lua language POW you need a tristate for flags: nil (not
passed), true (passed as true), false (passed as false). Otherwise it’s real
easy to be confused when handling things that have a default state absent any
flag, or an antonym (with/without, quiet/verbose, etc), or
One
Pulled that part out of #1383 for now to avoid piling on.
In the meanwhile I've been pondering about that '..' syntax which is as
arbitrary as anything. Maybe a better syntax would be a wildcard '*' instead, ie
```
%foo(*) {
}
```
Thoughts?
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
@mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> +lua_newtable(L);
+if (opts) {
+ int c, argc = argvCount(args);
+
+/* glibc uses optind 0 for (re)initializing internal structures, sigh */
+#ifdef __GLIBC__
+ optind = 0;
+#else
+ optind = 1;
+#endif
+ while ((c =
@mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> +lua_newtable(L);
+if (opts) {
+ int c, argc = argvCount(args);
+
+/* glibc uses optind 0 for (re)initializing internal structures, sigh */
+#ifdef __GLIBC__
+ optind = 0;
+#else
+ optind = 1;
+#endif
+ while ((c =
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static ssize_t fdWrite(FDSTACK_t fps, const void * buf,
> size_t count)
static int fdSeek(FDSTACK_t fps, off_t pos, int whence)
{
-return lseek(fps->fdno, pos, whence);
+return (lseek(fps->fdno, pos, whence)) == -1 ?
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
414a92cafebd992a418e1a4d928903b27a4894cb Pass parametric macro options and
arguments to Lua natively (#1092)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
In the last push, Lua can now natively access both parsed options and arguments
(see added documentation)
I left the %foo(..) part out for now, I'll deal with that separately once this
lands to limit the number of moving parts, this was a bit more involved than
the initial version...
--
You
...and done, now including actual documentation:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1383/commits/a3c336434f0abcfb5c17ef4718429f86873f7f4d
@hroncok - basically yes, options without value are saved as empty strings in
the Lua table so both boolean and value access work as you'd
27 matches
Mail list logo
