On 03/01/2016 02:56 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (01/03/16 13:30), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> On 03/01/2016 10:46 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (29/02/16 20:30), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>> On 02/29/2016 07:27 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>> On (29/02/16 18:54), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>>>> keeping the "if" branches consistent and somewhat easier to
interpret.
>>>>> However, if you and others are more comfortable reading and using
regex(3)
>>>>> regexes, then it's fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>> + [ $# != 0 ] && sudo -p "$prompt" \
>>>>>> + yum-deprecated --assumeyes install
-- "$@" |&
>>>>>> + awk 'BEGIN {s=0}
>>>>>> + /^No package .* available.$/ {s=1}
>>>>>> + {print}
>>>>>> + END {exit s}'
>>>>>> + elif [[ "$DISTRO_BRANCH" == -redhat-* ]]; then
>>>>>> [ $# != 0 ] && sudo -p "$prompt" yum
--assumeyes install -- "$@" |&
>>>>>> # Pass input to output, fail if a missing package
is reported
>>>>>> # TODO Remove and switch to DNF once
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that avoiding copy-pasting here would produce more complicated
code, so
>>>>> it's perhaps OK. However, it would be good then to copy-paste the
comment
>>>>> along with the TODO as well, and then perhaps add a note and a TODO
regarding
>>>>> BZ1215208.
>>>>>
>>>> We will still need awk trick for old style yum on el{6,7}. Therefore
>>>> I moved TODO to the 1st branch.
>>>
>>> Well, yeah, the bug is Fedora-specific, but we still need to have a reminder
>>> to remove the hack on RHEL as well. It will get fixed eventually.
>>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>> We need to awk workaround because yum does not fail if you want to install
>> unknown packages and there is not a bug for yum and I doubt they would
>> fix/change it in stable distributions. Therefore we will need to have
>> this solution there for yum anyway.
>
> Yes. IIRC I reported this for yum originally, but the developers moved the bug
> to dnf (fixing it later) and refused to fix it in yum.
>
> I too doubt they'll fix it in stable distributions. However I expect they will
> get dnf into RHEL (which is handled by the bottom branch) eventually (RHEL8?),
> and will also fix that '--' bug. That's when a note would come in handy.
>
RHEL8 is far future atm. And I guess we will need to do more changes there :-)
Yes, it's far.
>> dnf behaves correctly in this manner. However it ignores
separator "--"
>> between arguments and packages which is tracked in BZ1215208.
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
Does it mean ACK to the last patch?
Alright, otherwise it's fine. ACK :)
Nick