On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:02:09PM +0200, Adrian Schröter wrote:
Am Dienstag, 5. April 2011, 13:57:58 schrieb Marcus Rueckert:
On 2011-04-05 13:48:40 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 12:17:26PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
this was the planned way and given that you can use newlines inside a topadd element, having multiple topadd doesnt make any sense. can we revert that change please?
No, multiple topadds make perfect sense (and they were supported right from the beginning). You can also intermix them with other patch elements.
what different semantics do i get from <topadd>%define foo 1</topadd> <topadd>%define bar 1</topadd>
versus?
<topadd> %define foo 1 %define bar 1 </topadd>
none
Actually <topadd>%define foo 1</topadd> <topadd>%define bar 1</topadd> is equivalent to <topadd> %define bar 1 %define foo 1 </topadd> Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org