Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
PATCH: Re: Rpm completion problem
- X-seq: zsh-workers 12567
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: PATCH: Re: Rpm completion problem
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:07:46 +0200 (MET DST)
- In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Sun, 6 Aug 2000 19:08:41 +0000
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Aug 5, 5:08pm, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> } On Aug 5, 12:25am, Wayne Davison wrote:
> } }
> } } I've noticed a problem in rpm completions when I specify the 'p'
> } } (package file) option bunched up with other options.
> } This was discussed in the thread referenced by zsh-workers/11752, and
> } I think the patch in 11985 was supposed to provide a way to fix it, but
> } _rpm never got updated.
> The last word in that discussion appears to have been Sven, do you
> recall whether you every did anything specific to this?
The patch is in 11876. I didn't touch _rpm, though (as you saw).
> I remarked in 11742:
> } Currently _rpm uses `-p+' as the spec for the -p option. That means that
> } anything that will follow the -p (including package file name) is allowed
> } to appear in the same word, or in the next word.
> } If we remove the `+', then "rpm -qpc" doesn't match the spec `-p', and so
> } completion doesn't enter the `package_file' state -- it instead enters the
> } `package_or_file' state (the default spec from the `query' state).
> This is no longer the problem; remove the `+' and `rpm -qpc <TAB>' completes
> package file names exactly as it should. However, `rpm -qp<TAB>' inserts a
> space rather than completing `c' et al.
> Based on my exchange with Sven as quoted in 11793, I'd say that _rpm needs
> another ->state in order to handle bunched query options following -qp, or
> at least that the package_file state needs to be tweaked somehow. In the
> meantime, if you don't mind having to make `p' be the last option in any
> bunch beginning with `-q', just remove the `+' on line 62 of _rpm.
There were to buglets. ca_get_sopt() (the function that checks if we
are in a multi-single-letter-option string) returned the wrong option,
namely the `i' in `-qip'. And then we should handle the option
argument in the same word only if we have a `-o+' option.
As far as I can see, it should work correctly now. Or does rpm accept
a filename directly after the -p in the same word? In that we have to
put back the `+' in _rpm.
RCS file: /cvsroot/zsh/zsh/Completion/Linux/_rpm,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.16 _rpm
--- Completion/Linux/_rpm 2000/08/02 13:45:52 1.16
+++ Completion/Linux/_rpm 2000/08/08 12:02:29
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
'-a[query all packages]'
- '-p+[query uninstalled package file]:*:RPM package file:->package_file'
+ '-p[query uninstalled package file]:*:RPM package file:->package_file'
'-f[specify file to query owner of]:file:_files'
RCS file: /cvsroot/zsh/zsh/Src/Zle/computil.c,v
retrieving revision 1.40
diff -u -r1.40 computil.c
--- Src/Zle/computil.c 2000/08/08 10:32:49 1.40
+++ Src/Zle/computil.c 2000/08/08 12:02:38
@@ -1108,6 +1108,7 @@
*end = line;
+ pp = p;
} else if (!p || (p && !p->active))
@@ -1429,7 +1430,9 @@
state.oargs[state.curopt->num] = znewlinklist();
- ddef = state.def = state.curopt->args;
+ state.def = state.curopt->args;
+ ddef = (state.curopt->type == CAO_NEXT && cur == compcurrent ?
+ NULL : state.def);
dopt = state.curopt;
doff = pe - line;
state.optbeg = state.argbeg = state.inopt = cur;
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by: