[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       rpm-devel
Subject:    Re: Dueling symbols using PCRE emulation of POSIX ERE's
From:       Jeff Johnson <n3npq () mac ! com>
Date:       2009-01-14 17:28:12
Message-ID: 84CCA5FA-7053-4D6E-AEE8-A7314C750132 () mac ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:

> On Wednesday 14 January 2009 15.54:19 Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> A patch to external "system" PCRE cannot be assumed by rpm.
>>
>> Sure patch existence could be tested by AutoFu, and fail to build rpm
>> if a PCRE patch is not applied to "system" PCRE, but that doesn't  
>> really
>> help anything at all.
>
> Checking for the patch in system PCRE, and if it isn't there,  
> falling back to
> mandatory internal PCRE would help...
>

Trivially arranged, todo++.

> The PCRE fix seems to be widely in use, from what was posted on the  
> list
> today, I gather at least
>
> PLD
> Debian and derivates
> Ark
>
> all have it.
>

And AIX and Sun and *BSD and ... all have the PCRE patch?

I need RPM build portability to more than linux these days.

And the symbol clash, or whether PCRE is internal or external,
isn't the real problem.

The fundamental problem that needs solving before __ANY__
pattern matching can be done on critical internal code
paths (the EVRtuple parsing just happens to be first) is

	What *RE dialect implementation can be reliably assumed to be present?

within a @rpm5.org implementation.

73 de Jeff
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager                                    http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List                        rpm-devel@rpm5.org
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]