From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NROCM-0006Sa-Il for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:00:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A9B80E043A; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:00:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D183E043A for ; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:00:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (cp237988-a.mill1.nb.home.nl [84.26.213.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7538B673DB for ; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:00:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:00:37 +0100 From: Harald van =?utf-8?Q?D=C4=B3k?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] base.eclass Message-ID: <20100103110037.GA29047@boostbox> References: <4B3F6BB5.1030703@gentoo.org> <4B3FF949.40901@gentoo.org> <20100103062307.GA13558@boostbox> <19264.29027.852829.477540@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19264.29027.852829.477540@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 3e975280-adbf-4019-90f1-d7dd338a853d X-Archives-Hash: e0918230bf7771289a88bc22ffc585c6 On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Harald van D=C4=B3k wrote: >=20 > >> > 65 base_src_util $@ > >> This is not problem >=20 > > Only because you can be sure there will be exactly one word in the > > result, which will not be split. In general, $@ should be quoted, and= it > > would be a good idea to either do it here too even though it's not > > strictly necessary, or make the intent clearer and just write >=20 > > base_src_util $1 >=20 > I think this would not be correct. Note the while loop over parameters > in base_src_util. You're right. I'm so used to src_unpack normally not having any arguments that I didn't stop to think base_src_unpack could easily be called explicitly, with as many parameters as you'd like. Checking shows this is not done in the tree (never more than one parameter, and usually zero), but that's no reason to drop it. :) > So it should be "$@" (with quotes). That'd be better, but my point still stands: the arguments to base_src_unpack won't ever contain anything that can be expanded, so quot= ing isn't strictly necessary, just a good idea. Not that I'm against the quoting, of course.