Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Burcin Erocal <burcin@××××××.org>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] portage bug ?
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:08:05
Message-Id: 20110831150945.55e91fbf@carl.erocal.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] portage bug ? by Fabian Groffen
1 On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:46:54 +0200
2 Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On 31-08-2011 11:45:27 +0200, Burcin Erocal wrote:
5 > > I didn't have time to test the patch myself, since we already have a
6 > > report of it not working, here is a justification for my patch...
7 > >
8 > > AFAICT, the original error message indicates that more arguments are
9 > > provided to % than there are place holders in the string. The +
10 > > operator has lower precedence than %, so the string is not
11 > > concatenated with the part on the previous line. Note that the
12 > > string in the error message has 3 place holders only, the fourth
13 > > should come from the line above. I added parenthesis around the
14 > > string addition to fix the precedence problem.
15 >
16 > Aha. That explains. Now I understand why the fix fixes it as well.
17 > I'll apply it ASAP. Thanks a lot!
18
19 A better fix might be to replace the + at the end of line 163 with \.
20 This way the parser concatenates the strings and we don't introduce an
21 extra operation. :)
22
23
24 Thanks for all the hard work on gentoo-prefix.
25
26 Cheers,
27 Burcin

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-alt] portage bug ? Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>