From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3646 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 07:38:20 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 07:38:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 22347 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 07:38:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 17028 Received: (qmail 22333 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 07:38:09 -0000 From: Sven Wischnowsky MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15558.24758.24690.413672@wischnow.berkom.de> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:37:26 +0200 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: _values does not quote inserted matches In-Reply-To: <20020423094513.GA20267@logica.com> References: <001501c1e77d$6e0a94c0$1fc1f2a3@mow.siemens.ru> <1020419165448.ZM15149@candle.brasslantern.com> <20020423094513.GA20267@logica.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.5 (patch 3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Oliver Kiddle wrote: > Andrej wrote: > > > > Here is updated version. It relies on recent _values fixes. The > > completion is correct for Mandrake 8.2. If you say O.K it will go in > > both head and 4.0. > > Are the recent _values fixes going on the 4.0 branch then? I'd say that > was questionable without first checking through _values calls for > quoted strings. Presumably _urpmi can be adjusted for the old _values > fairly easily so if Andrej is happy that it works on each branch, it > gets my okay. Well, the C-code changes (16998) have been applied to 4.0. If that's everything this patch relies upon, it's probably ok. No doubt Andrej has made or will make sure. > > I'd like to use common with _rpm cache and functions to get list of > > installed RPMs, but _rpm is one large function and I am reluctant to > > split it (I remember somebody was against it, but forgot reasons). > > I can't think of any reason why not. It is very similar to the Debian > situation where we have an _deb_packages used by both _dpkg and _apt. > Maybe the reasons against splitting _rpm before was based on rpm being > the only command to complete rpm packages. I think we only were against splitting it up so that we have one function file per sub-command. Factoring out the completion of RPM names is alright, I think. > Bart wrote: > > Somebody other than me (Peter? Oliver? Sven?) should give the OK. > > Well I haven't been able to test the _values calling part as it gets > its arguments by parsing urpmi.cfg which I don't have. > > Looking over the rest it looks fine. The one thing I see that I would > do differently is to have a single tags loop in _urpmi_rpms instead > of the three consecutive _wanted calls. It also adds source and > binary rpms separately which means that directories get added twice. > I think it'd be better to add them together - a user can always > separate them with a file-patterns style. Right. My only other comment is that the indentation style is completely different from our normal one in the completion functions. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@berkom.de