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
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] portage bug ? by Fabian Groffen
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:46:54 +0200
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:

> On 31-08-2011 11:45:27 +0200, Burcin Erocal wrote: > > I didn't have time to test the patch myself, since we already have a > > report of it not working, here is a justification for my patch... > > > > AFAICT, the original error message indicates that more arguments are > > provided to % than there are place holders in the string. The + > > operator has lower precedence than %, so the string is not > > concatenated with the part on the previous line. Note that the > > string in the error message has 3 place holders only, the fourth > > should come from the line above. I added parenthesis around the > > string addition to fix the precedence problem. > > Aha. That explains. Now I understand why the fix fixes it as well. > I'll apply it ASAP. Thanks a lot!
A better fix might be to replace the + at the end of line 163 with \. This way the parser concatenates the strings and we don't introduce an extra operation. :) Thanks for all the hard work on gentoo-prefix. Cheers, Burcin


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