Ah, ok, so this works, but not for the `%endif`. I cannot say I grasped it from
the documentation update :/
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996#issuecomment-2022749958
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -246,8 +246,8 @@ static int expandMacrosInSpecBuf(rpmSpec spec, int strip)
if ((condition) && (!condition->withArgs)) {
const char *s = lbuf + condition->textLen;
SKIPSPACE(s);
- if (s[0])
-
> > `%dnl` already works for this purpose, doesn't it?
>
> It doesn't, because this check happens before macro expansion.
This fails:
~~~
$ cat license-subpackages.spec
Summary: Demonstration package for mining licenses from subpackages
Name: license-subpackages
Version: 1
Release: 1%{?dist}
Merged #2996 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996#event-12265396584
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -246,8 +246,8 @@ static int expandMacrosInSpecBuf(rpmSpec spec, int strip)
if ((condition) && (!condition->withArgs)) {
const char *s = lbuf + condition->textLen;
SKIPSPACE(s);
- if (s[0])
-
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -246,8 +246,8 @@ static int expandMacrosInSpecBuf(rpmSpec spec, int strip)
if ((condition) && (!condition->withArgs)) {
const char *s = lbuf + condition->textLen;
SKIPSPACE(s);
- if (s[0])
- rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING,
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -246,8 +246,8 @@ static int expandMacrosInSpecBuf(rpmSpec spec, int strip)
if ((condition) && (!condition->withArgs)) {
const char *s = lbuf + condition->textLen;
SKIPSPACE(s);
- if (s[0])
-
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
fc4c5ef5aaae4a0e360cde24c13647ef4ed8be16 Make junk after conditionals an error
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996/files/6bbb6a39e662d32fa0876c3cafcb091509200c09..fc4c5ef5aaae4a0e360cde24c13647ef4ed8be16
You are receiving this
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -246,8 +246,8 @@ static int expandMacrosInSpecBuf(rpmSpec spec, int strip)
if ((condition) && (!condition->withArgs)) {
const char *s = lbuf + condition->textLen;
SKIPSPACE(s);
- if (s[0])
-
> `%dnl` already works for this purpose, doesn't it?
It doesn't, because this check happens before macro expansion.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996#issuecomment-2022362161
You are receiving this because you are
`%dnl` already works for this purpose, doesn't it?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996#issuecomment-2022331640
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Done.
@dmnks: This needs to go into the compatibility notes of the 4.20 release.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996#issuecomment-2022305618
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Lets worry about the other stuff separately, this is the thing that hurts the
most by far because it used to work, even if for the wrong reasons.
Making non-comments an error now that we do allow comments is indeed the right
thing to do :+1:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on
I am open to allow comments elsewhere, too. This will probably require multiple
independent patches. This one is for conditionals. (Although I am fine to do
that in this PR)
I would not allow comments in the section contents per se. But basically allow
them for the native RPM parts and leave
Heh, that's indeed a pretty simple cure for this. The "problem" of course is
that it's inconsistent with the rest of the spec where comments are only
allowed at the beginning of lines, but seeing how widely this is in use and how
many pointless warnings packagers suffer for it... seems well
Still issue an warning for everything else. Now that comments are allowed again
may be we should issue an error for those cases.
Resolves: #829
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996
-- Commit Summary --
*
16 matches
Mail list logo
