[pacman-dev] [PATCH] scripts/library: rewrite parse_options

Dave Reisner d at falconindy.com
Wed Aug 17 20:26:16 EDT 2011

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:22:18AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 18/08/11 09:34, Dave Reisner wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 08:57:55AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>On 18/08/11 08:27, Dan McGee wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Dave Reisner<d at falconindy.com>   wrote:
> >>>>In addition to being what I feel is a cleaner and faster implementation,
> >>>>we avoid the use of eval by normalizing option arguments into a global
> >>>>array which is then set after a successful call to parse_options.
> >>>>
> >>>>This trims out the idea of having multiple arguments to a single option,
> >>>>making our parsing algorithm a little more sane. We never took advantage of
> >>>>this in makepkg (for the one option that feasibly supports it), and I
> >>>>think we've overlooked a much simpler solution in pacman-key. Since
> >>>>actions are limited to 1 at a time the leftover positional parameters
> >>>>become the keys or keyfiles which are acted upon.
> >>>>
> >>>>Also added is a new test directory test/scripts with a harness for
> >>>>parse_options, run as part of make check.
> >>>>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Dave Reisner<dreisner at archlinux.org>
> >>>>---
> >>>>Thoughts? I know Allan wasn't quite sold on this, as the downside is that we
> >>>>sort of pigeonhole ourselves into using the non-optional parameter as arguments
> >>>>to our action. This has zero effect on makepkg.
> >>>>
> >>>>I've also thought to add --option=arg syntax parsing, but I'm not sure we need
> >>>>this.
> >>>
> >>>Allan, was deferring to you on this.
> >>
> >>
> >>Well, I was deferring to you as Dave is right that I was never sold
> >>on this...
> >>
> >>Unless I am missing something, this does have a minor effect on
> >>makepkg.  In git "makepkg --pkg foo bar" builds only foo and bar
> >>from a split package.
> >
> >And, imo, this introduces bizzare unexpected behavior. With the
> >"standard" getopt{,_long}, passing something such as:
> >
> >   --pkg foo bar
> >
> >I'd expect bar to be completely unrelated to the flag. Not the case
> >here, and this behavior isn't really documented clearly at all. We don't
> >even properly handle arguments with whitespace anymore. Not such a big
> >deal for makepkg, but I think it's reasonable that pacman-key might some
> >day need to import a key from a file with a space in the name.
> I thought the whitespace issue was fixed but testing now I see it is
> not.  That is definitely something that needs addressed.
> >>I guess with this patch we would have to quote the package names in
> >>some way (like is needed on the current maint release).  So we would
> >>need to revert changes made to the makepkg documentation when the
> >>multiple arguments stuff was added.
> >
> >We can (should?) follow pacman here and separate multiple arguments by
> >commas. I'm going to channel Dan and call out "consistency" here.
> You mean like "pacman -S pkg1,pkg2"?   Fairly sure we do not do
> that! So I call consistency...  Where do we use commas in pacman
> options?

No I mean like pacman -Syu --ignore pkg1,pkg2

But, that's a good point about the "flexibility" of the non-option
parameters. Just like I'm proposing for pacman-key, we generalize the
term for pacman and call them "targets". They could be a repo, a
file, a sync/local package... They don't belong to any particular
option, but they're acted upon by the singular specified action.


More information about the pacman-dev mailing list