Oh and BTW, thanks @mlschroe for the quick fix!
--
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/issues/1659#issuecomment-829157370___
Closed #1659 via #1661.
--
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/issues/1659#event-4662101162___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-mai
@mlschroe , I went ahead and created a PR from this with a testcase, hope you
don't mind.
--
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/issues/1659#issuecomment-828219498_
> No you wouldn't. Nobody expects contents of a #-commented line to affect
> anything coming after it, it's just absurd. It's absurd in specs too as
> indicated by the endless bugs and tickets filed on the behavior over the
> years, but at least there we have an excuse or two, and other options
No you wouldn't. Nobody expects contents of a #-commented line to affect
anything coming after it, it's just absurd. It's absurd in specs too as
indicated by the endless bugs and tickets filed on the behavior over the years,
but at least there we have an excuse or two, and other options (%dnl).
Personally, I would prefer to emit an error here.
--
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/issues/1659#issuecomment-827639587__
> If you don't mind rdcl() reaching an even higher level of ugliness, an easy
> fix is to add
> [...]
Doesn't seem that bad to me, considering the company it's in. Perhaps a comment
of the case would be in order. Care to submit a PR?
I rather like the new behavior otherwise.
--
You are receiv
> That also happens without the patch.
Oh, sorry. I thought I had a minimal reproducer but it was in a bit of a haste
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953910 is the original case) so I
missed the some further subtleties. It indeed relates to the empty newlines,
the real reproducer
If you don't mind rdcl() reaching an even higher level of ugliness, an easy fix
is to add
```
if (p == buf) {
while (*p && isblank(*p))
p++;
if (*p != '%') {
*q = '\0'; /* trim trailing \r, \n */
break;
That also happens without the patch. I think you need
```
%xmacro1 foo
# %{
%xmacro2 bar
```
I.e. an empty line that used to terminate the body.
--
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-softwar
PR #1606 (commit 75275a87cff04da65d3557f2c40ea2b526528c4c) changed macro file
loading in a subtle way. Prior to that, the both macros in the following would
be loaded. Now, anything coming after the comment gets silently discarded:
```
%xmacro1 foo
# %{
%xmacro2 bar
```
> [pmatilai🎩︎lumikko rpm
11 matches
Mail list logo