On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 22:59 +0200, devzero2000 wrote:
> >Also, I do have to admit my other agenda of trying to avoid rather
> useless >incompatibilities in rpm.org vs rpm5.org.. (shoot me! ;p)
>
> I you thinks this is important look at this
> http://devel.linux.duke.edu/gitweb/?p=rpm.git;a=commitd
>Also, I do have to admit my other agenda of trying to avoid rather useless
>incompatibilities in rpm.org vs rpm5.org.. (shoot me! ;p)
I you thinks this is important look at this
http://devel.linux.duke.edu/gitweb/?p=rpm.git;a=commitdiff;h=05be2a2fdb44558d2b6bc1b785128c1decae2aae
Look like a "pr
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Panu Matilainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008, Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan wrote:
>
> Hi RPM developers,
>>
>> I noticed there are 2 pot files in the /po directory.
>>
>> I believe current translation (*.po) is based on rpm.pot and not
>> rpmpopt.pot
>IMO the real problem in this whole thing is the horrible inconsistency in
comment handling. %patch and %setup are "macros" yet > they can be
commented out with #. %build and such are section markers despite looking
similar to macros,
IMHO, in RPM 4.4.2 %patch is a "semi-macros", e.g. expanded ad
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 17:56 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Yes, and many many other ugly quirks too. Feel free to bring 'em on and
> lets try to see if there are ways to fix them without inventing an
> entirely new spec syntax at once. (although in many ways that'd probably
> be the best thing
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Peter Bowen wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 17:33 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Pixel wrote:
Panu Matilainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
A very straightforward and simple rule would be "if the first
character of the text to process starts is "#", braces a
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 17:33 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Pixel wrote:
> > Panu Matilainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> A very straightforward and simple rule would be "if the first
> >> character of the text to process starts is "#", braces are required to
> >> perfo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Pixel wrote:
Panu Matilainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
A very straightforward and simple rule would be "if the first
character of the text to process starts is "#", braces are required to perform
macro expansion"
i'd rather not introduce such a difference between %foo a
2008/6/6 Pixel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Panu Matilainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A very straightforward and simple rule would be "if the first
> > character of the text to process starts is "#", braces are required to
> perform
> > macro expansion"
>
> i'd rather not introduce such a differ
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008, 13:41:41 +0200, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
> [...]
> My argument is that %macros isn't shell scripts, even if they're mixed, '#'
> isn't even always the equivalent of a comment either in all cases, all
> depending on context.
If you look at the original post from Pixel with a p
Panu Matilainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A very straightforward and simple rule would be "if the first
> character of the text to process starts is "#", braces are required to perform
> macro expansion"
i'd rather not introduce such a difference between %foo and %{foo}
just for the sake of c
(sent with wrong address due to gmail, moderator feel free to reject the
other)
2008/6/6 Per Øyvind Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/6/6 Manfred Hollstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008, 11:25:02 +0200, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > Sorry for justr barging in on t
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008, 11:25:02 +0200, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
> [...]
> Sorry for justr barging in on the thread, I'm writing from my gmail account
> now and didn't get the chance to read the thread.
>
> But I find it silly to add extra complexity to comment out macros with a
> '#', when they can
2008/6/6 Manfred Hollstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008, 11:00:00 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > [...]
> > This sounds like a no-brainer - why should anything be done for comment
> > lines? But consider the following spec snippet:
> >
> > %build
> > cat << EOF > example.conf
> > #
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008, 11:00:00 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> [...]
> This sounds like a no-brainer - why should anything be done for comment
> lines? But consider the following spec snippet:
>
> %build
> cat << EOF > example.conf
> # To enable feature foo, uncomment the following:
> #[myplugin]
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Manfred Hollstein wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008, 16:36:39 +0200, Pixel wrote:
without this patch, "#%define foo bar" is surprisingly equivalent to "%define foo
bar"
with this patch, "#%define foo bar" is a fatal error.
Hmm, to me this appears like papering over a real proble
16 matches
Mail list logo
