Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: _values does not quote inserted matches
- X-seq: zsh-workers 17028
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: _values does not quote inserted matches
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:37:26 +0200
- In-reply-to: <20020423094513.GA20267@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <001501c1e77d$6e0a94c0$1fc1f2a3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1020419165448.ZM15149@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020423094513.GA20267@xxxxxxxxxx>
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.
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by: