Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] ignore comments in multiline variable definitions

2013-02-14 Thread Michal Vyskocil
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 08:07:07PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 13.02.13 20:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > Actually, the syntax already is _not_ a subset of the shell, and has its > > own pecularities. Anyone trying to blindly follow shell rules is g

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] ignore comments in multiline variable definitions

2013-02-13 Thread Kok, Auke-jan H
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 08:07:07PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: >>> On Wed, 13.02.13 20:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Actu

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] ignore comments in multiline variable definitions

2013-02-13 Thread Kay Sievers
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 08:07:07PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Wed, 13.02.13 20:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) >> wrote: >> >> > Actually, the syntax already is _not_ a subset of the shell, and h

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] ignore comments in multiline variable definitions

2013-02-13 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 08:07:07PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 13.02.13 20:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > Actually, the syntax already is _not_ a subset of the shell, and has its > > own pecularities. Anyone trying to blindly follow shell rules is g

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] ignore comments in multiline variable definitions

2013-02-13 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 13.02.13 20:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > Actually, the syntax already is _not_ a subset of the shell, and has its > own pecularities. Anyone trying to blindly follow shell rules is going > to be severly bitten anyway. So, why not go a bit further and change

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] ignore comments in multiline variable definitions

2013-02-13 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 07:41:54PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 13.02.13 05:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:27:49AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > On Thu, 07.02.13 11:45, Michal Vyskocil (mvysko...@suse.cz) wrot

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] ignore comments in multiline variable definitions

2013-02-13 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 13.02.13 05:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:27:49AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Thu, 07.02.13 11:45, Michal Vyskocil (mvysko...@suse.cz) wrote: > > > > > Commented lines are ignored by default and are considered as end

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] ignore comments in multiline variable definitions

2013-02-12 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:27:49AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 07.02.13 11:45, Michal Vyskocil (mvysko...@suse.cz) wrote: > > > Commented lines are ignored by default and are considered as end of a > > definition. If they ends on a backslash, they are just ignored and a > > next lin

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] ignore comments in multiline variable definitions

2013-02-12 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 07.02.13 11:45, Michal Vyskocil (mvysko...@suse.cz) wrote: > Commented lines are ignored by default and are considered as end of a > definition. If they ends on a backslash, they are just ignored and a > next line is considered as a part of a definition. I am pretty sure that continuation

[systemd-devel] [PATCH] ignore comments in multiline variable definitions

2013-02-07 Thread Michal Vyskocil
Commented lines are ignored by default and are considered as end of a definition. If they ends on a backslash, they are just ignored and a next line is considered as a part of a definition. FOO=one \ two will be evaluated as FOO="one two", where FOO=one \ two will result in FOO="one" and two. -