Closed #834.
--
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/834#event-2654226267___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Hmm. It's on the subtle side, and such things aren't the easiest to communicate
to the packager community at large. But lets see...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
No, don't drop it. It's still useful if you need to do expansion before calling
the expression parser.
I.e. you have either 'expand first, then don't expand in the expression parser'
or 'expand in the expression parser':
```
%define test 1 + 2
%{expr:%test}
# the next line expands twice!
Note that if we add %[] for expressions then I think we should drop %{expr:...}
entirely, it hardly serves any purpose then.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I'm thinking that with these new developments, we'd better revert %{expr:..}
entirely from 4.15, we don't want people adopting it if the behavior is just
about to change. Pulling it into 4.15 felt a bit hasty anyway, apparently for a
good reason.
Along with that change I think we can sneak in
Ok, I'll create a pull request tomorrow. Is it ok to add a `flags` argument to
rpmExprBool()/rpmExprStr() or is the API fixed and we need new functions? I'm
asking because they are in rpm-4.15.x and you probably don't want to cherry
pick this into 4.15?
The flags would be
Yeah, %[] is nice.
--
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/834#issuecomment-532075022___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@mlschroe: I like this idea. I checked Fedora spec files and there was no
conflict with "%[... ]".
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
How about using `%[ ]` for expression expansion? We'd have:
`%{ ... }`: macro expansion
`%( ... )`: shell expansion
`%[ ... ]`: expression expansions
I did a grep over SUSE's spec files and there was no conflict. Could someone
please do this
for Fedora as well?
--
You are receiving this
Here's my proposal:
1) turn off default string expansion in rdToken
This is an incompatible change, but it's clearly the right thing and I
can't imaging somebody
actually using this in a %if statement
2) Add optional expansion for the integer case
3) Add a new macro that does not
There's a lot of expansion going on in the %expr macro. Witness this:
./rpm --eval '%{expr: ""}'
%
The string gets expanded
- at the start of doFoo when it expands the argument
- in rdToken when it parses a string
- at the end of doFoo because of issue #313
I'm somewhat surprised that
11 matches
Mail list logo
