@ffesti, I wrote couple of testcases for "with" op and looks like it doesn't
work in some cases
```
208: unsatisfied WITH require ok
209: satisfied WITH require ok
210: unsatisfied nested WITH-AND require FAILED (rpmdeps.at:851)
211: satisfied nested WITH-AND require FAILED (rpmdeps.at:877)
212: unsatisfied nested WITH-OR require ok
213: satisfied nested WITH-OR require ok
214: unsatisfied nested WITH-IF require ok
215: satisfied nested WITH-IF require - not featured FAILED (rpmdeps.at:983)
216: satisfied nested WITH-IF require - full chain FAILED (rpmdeps.at:1006)
217: unsatisfied nested WITH-IF-ELSE require ok
218: satisfied nested WITH-IF-ELSE require - left clause FAILED
(rpmdeps.at:1061)
219: satisfied nested WITH-IF-ELSE require - right clause ok
```
* `WITH-AND` is intentional, but I think we should allow it and internally
translate to `WITH-WITH`
* `WITH-IF` doesn't understand that right clause is kinda optional
* `WITH-IF-ELSE` does something weird wither left clause of `IF`
--
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/164#issuecomment-281974663
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint