This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] Multiple --site options
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:34:01 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Multiple --site options
- References: <4DE36335.1010404@ludens.elte.hu> <4E297C1E.9020200@dronecode.org.uk> <4E2DB97B.2060107@ludens.elte.hu> <4F44CED8.2080303@dronecode.org.uk>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:17:44AM +0000, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>On 25/07/2011 19:44, szgyg wrote:
>> On 7/22/2011 3:33 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2011 10:28, szgyg wrote:
>>>> I want to say `./setup.exe --site <ports> --site <local-repo>', so
>>>> there it is.
>>>
>>> However, I think it needs a clearer description: What it actually does is
>>> (i) add infrastructure for handling options which are repeated, and (ii)
>>> correctly handle multiple --site, --pubkey and -sexpr-pubkey options.
>>
>> 2011-07-25 SZAVAI Gyula <szgyg-Vx2QyAHHJOs5Z0SDYBDJZg@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> * libgetopt++/src/StringArrayOption.cc: New file.
>> Infrastructure for repeated string options.
>> * libgetopt++/include/getopt++/StringArrayOption.h: Ditto.
>> * libgetopt++/Makefile.am: Add new files.
>> * site.cc (SiteSetting::SiteSetting): Handle multiple --site
>> options.
>> * crypto.cc (verify_ini_file_sig): Handle multiple --pubkey and
>> --sexpr-pubkey options.
>> * package_meta.cc (packagemeta::isManuallyWanted): Handle
>> multiple --packages and --categories options.
>>
>>> Would it make sense for the new StringArrayOption class derive from or
>>> have members of type StringOption, rather than duplicating some of it?
>>
>> We can move some common code from {Bool,StringArray,String}Option up to the
>> Option class. I will be AFK in the next two weeks, after that I will send a
>> follow-up patch.
>
>Looking at this again, I withdrawn my comment on putting common code in the
>Option class. This patch matches the existing design of having no code in the
>Option class.
>
>So can we apply this? It's correct, and it works.
Do you want to do it Jon? I haven't looked at it in detail (i.e., at
all) but if you think it's ok, that works for me.
cgf