Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
Hello Jindrich,
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 19:52 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 15:33 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
\{Gg\}\{Rr\}\{Oo\}\{Uu\}\{Pp\}
This is a joke, isn't it?
Just imagine a nice spec like this:
SuMmArY: Programs for backing up and restoring ext2/ext3 filesystems
nAMe: dump
veRSioN: 0.4b41
I agree it looks odd but it's valid syntax :-) .
At least the first capital letter should be mandatory upper-case
Although I don't really mind that we put some restrictions on the user
as to what capitalization is being highlighted I disagree with this. All
lowercase tags should be highlighted imo. Using all lowercase is rather
consistent and I encounter an occasional spec file that does this. And
why should we allow the decapitalization of the a in BuildArch but not
the B?
Leonard.
--
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research
___
Mc-devel mailing list
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
Hi Leonard, On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 13:11 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: And why should we allow the decapitalization of the a in BuildArch but not the B? Because buildArch or buildPreReq in spec looks just wrong? ;-) Jindrich ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
Hi Jindrich, On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 17:35 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote: Because buildArch or buildPreReq in spec looks just wrong? ;-) As you might have guessed I was actually referring to buildarch and buildprereq. But I guess that if I prefer all lowercase tags to be highlighted I need to propose a patch here. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
Hi Andy,
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 17:22 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Jindrich Novy пишет:
My $0.02 to specfile highliting.
The mc shipped with FC4 doesn't handle correctly the case-insensivity
tags. For example, BuildArch and Buildarch are highliting differently,
but rpm recognize both.
I guess the mainstream also has this issue.
Here's the patch to fix it. Thanks for pointing this out.
Jindrich
--- mc/syntax/spec.syntax.case 2006-07-13 13:59:28.0 +0200
+++ mc/syntax/spec.syntax 2006-07-13 17:02:41.0 +0200
@@ -2,19 +2,19 @@
keyword whole Auto\{Pp\}rov: green
keyword whole Auto\{Rr\}eq\{Pp\}rov: green
keyword whole Auto\{Rr\}eq: green
-keyword whole BuildArch: green
-keyword whole BuildPre\{Rr\}eq: green
+keyword whole Build\{Aa\}rch: green
+keyword whole Build\{Pp\}re\{Rr\}eq: green
keyword whole Build\{Rr\}oot: green
-keyword whole BuildRequires: green
+keyword whole Build\{Rr\}equires: green
keyword whole Conflicts: green
keyword whole Copyright: white
keyword whole Description: green
keyword whole Distribution: green
keyword whole Doc\{Dd\}ir: green
keyword whole Epoch: green
-keyword whole ExcludeArch: green
-keyword whole ExclusiveArch: green
-keyword whole ExclusiveOS: green
+keyword whole Exclude\{Aa\}rch: green
+keyword whole Exclusive\{Aa\}rch: green
+keyword whole Exclusive\{Oo\}\{Ss\}: green
keyword whole Group: green
keyword whole Group(\[abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz\]): green
keyword whole Group(\[abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz\]_\[ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ\]): green
@@ -38,8 +38,7 @@
keyword whole Summary(\[abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz\]_\[ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ\].\[ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ-1234567890\]): green
keyword whole Vendor: green
keyword whole Version: green
-keyword whole URL: green
-keyword whole Url: green
+keyword whole U\{Rr\}\{Ll\}: green
keyword whole linestart %build red
keyword whole linestart %changelog red
___
Mc-devel mailing list
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Jindrich Novy wrote: Hi Andy, On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 17:22 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: Jindrich Novy ??: My $0.02 to specfile highliting. The mc shipped with FC4 doesn't handle correctly the case-insensivity tags. For example, BuildArch and Buildarch are highliting differently, but rpm recognize both. I guess the mainstream also has this issue. Here's the patch to fix it. Thanks for pointing this out. Commited. Thanks! ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
Jindrich Novy пишет: My $0.02 to specfile highliting. The mc shipped with FC4 doesn't handle correctly the case-insensivity tags. For example, BuildArch and Buildarch are highliting differently, but rpm recognize both. I guess the mainstream also has this issue. -- With best regards, Andy Shevchenko. mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
Hi,
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 15:33 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 09:24 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 17:22 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Jindrich Novy пишет:
My $0.02 to specfile highliting.
The mc shipped with FC4 doesn't handle correctly the case-insensivity
tags. For example, BuildArch and Buildarch are highliting differently,
but rpm recognize both.
Here's the patch to fix it. Thanks for pointing this out.
Andy's examples were just that: Examples. A complete patch should allow
any mixing of case for any spec keyword. For _example_:
\{Gg\}\{Rr\}\{Oo\}\{Uu\}\{Pp\}
Just fixing and committing a few arbitrary examples does not makes much
sense imo.
This is a joke, isn't it?
Just imagine a nice spec like this:
SuMmArY: Programs for backing up and restoring ext2/ext3 filesystems
nAMe: dump
veRSioN: 0.4b41
I really think that the highlighting rules for spec should be limited to
some set of commonly used tags. At least the first capital letter should
be mandatory upper-case and some case sensitivity fix-ups should be made
for tags composed from multiple words as Andy pointed out. Otherwise
specs written using mcedit would be a big mess IMO.
Jindrich
___
Mc-devel mailing list
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 14:08 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
Hi mc-devel,
attaching a simple patch that highlights obsolete RPM tags with white
color so that it helps the spec file editor to be better aware of the
fact they are obsolete for several years and shouldn't be used.
The patch was in the reversed order, attaching the correct one...
Jindrich
--- mc/syntax/spec.syntax.obsolete 2006-06-21 17:22:55.0 +0200
+++ mc/syntax/spec.syntax 2006-07-13 13:59:28.0 +0200
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
keyword whole Build\{Rr\}oot: green
keyword whole BuildRequires: green
keyword whole Conflicts: green
-keyword whole Copyright: green
+keyword whole Copyright: white
keyword whole Description: green
keyword whole Distribution: green
keyword whole Doc\{Dd\}ir: green
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
keyword whole Release: green
keyword whole Requires: green
keyword whole Root: green
+keyword whole Serial: white
keyword whole Source\[0123456789\]: green
keyword whole Summary: green
keyword whole Summary(\[abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz\]): green
___
Mc-devel mailing list
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jindrich Novy wrote: attaching a simple patch that highlights obsolete RPM tags with white color so that it helps the spec file editor to be better aware of the fact they are obsolete for several years and shouldn't be used. The patch was in the reversed order, attaching the correct one... Commited. P.S. what happend to your patch which changed the location of the configuration files to /etc ? Would you mind modifying it as suggested ? ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
Hi Andy, On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 17:22 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: Jindrich Novy пишет: My $0.02 to specfile highliting. The mc shipped with FC4 doesn't handle correctly the case-insensivity tags. For example, BuildArch and Buildarch are highliting differently, but rpm recognize both. I guess the mainstream also has this issue. Yes, I noticed that and it also needs to be fixed. I'm going to write a patch for it as well. Jindrich ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: obsolete RPM tags highlighting
Hi Pavel, On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 17:33 +0300, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jindrich Novy wrote: attaching a simple patch that highlights obsolete RPM tags with white color so that it helps the spec file editor to be better aware of the fact they are obsolete for several years and shouldn't be used. The patch was in the reversed order, attaching the correct one... Commited. Thanks. P.S. what happend to your patch which changed the location of the configuration files to /etc ? Would you mind modifying it as suggested ? Ah, almost forgot about that one. I need to reread the thread again so that I can modify the patch. Jindrich ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
