You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. If I put some configs in a file and call them by
%!includeconf: myfile, they produced the expected results
2. If I use the command line instead, with
--config-file=myfile some stuff is broken.
What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
It's seems that target specific rules (like
%!preproc(html): TARGET html
%!preproc(tex): TARGET tex
)
are now not so specific. The last one overrides the previous for any target.
What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
appears on version 2.5 Ubuntu Karmic and latest svn version
Please provide any additional information below.
Looking inside the script, there is a "suspicious" comment line
2233, in the method get_raw_config:
# Remove the 'target' item of all configs
So removing this part seems to correct the bug (see patch, note that this
is a simpler and better correction than the one I posted earlier on the
mailing list)
Original issue reported on code.google.com by emmanuel...@lif.univ-mrs.fr on 26 Jan 2010 at 6:55
Emmanuel, thank you very much for the detailed report, the analysis and even
the patch!
I've applied your patch, but then realized that we need some extra work for
this fix to be 100% ok. The way it is on the patch, the option order is not
preserved (all common options are saved first, then comes all configs from
included files) and the included configurations were not passing through the
filter/ignore process.
I've rewritten the way the get_raw_config() method works, now always saving the
target ('all' for plain options), so ConfigLines().include_config_file()
results now can be saved right away, integrating with the method's flow.
I've also created a new test for this specific condition in r228, so now we be
sure it's working as intended. I'll commit the changes and close this bug, but
please reopen it if you find anything wrong.
I'm glad the harder work was yours. I would have taken so much time to find the
right spot on the code where this nasty bug was hiding :) Thanks!
Original comment by aureliojargas@gmail.com on 11 Aug 2010 at 8:48
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
emmanuel...@lif.univ-mrs.fr
on 26 Jan 2010 at 6:55Attachments:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: