On Mon, Dec 30, 2002, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> > Die Syntax von %options gefaellt mir nicht sehr, denn %description ist
> > freitext und sollte daher auch nur als solcher betrachtet werden. Eine
> > fehlende (optionale!) Einrueckung und der Parser funktioniert nicht mehr.
> >
> > Die Syntax von %description in einem .spec-file unterscheidet sich jetzt
> > von der die rpm ausgibt. Es ist unmoeglich die Description in einem
> > specfile alleine zu parsen.
>
> There is no need to parse "%options" in %description if you parse a
> .spec file directly. If you parse directly, you can just look for
> the "%option" directives outside %description". And if you parse the
> %description output of RPM you again just have to look for the "%option"
> directives again. That's the reason why "%options" output the options
> again in the same "%option" syntax.
>
> So, forget "%description" and "%options": In both cases you just look
> for "%option"!
As mentioned by you, "openpkg build" currently still tries to find
the options in the %description texts from the INDEX. But the new
correct way would be that "openpkg index" parses the "%option" (no 's')
commands, adds these options as RDF tags to the index and that "openpkg
build" uses this information from the index only. "openpkg build" just
should look for the "%option" commands in "%description" for _installed_
packages. Michael, can you adjust "openpkg index" and "openpkg build"
for us to fit into the "new world order"? I've already poked around in
your sources, but I'm not 100% sure whether I fully understood the logic
in order to change this myself the correct way.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
