[Libguestfs] [nbdkit PATCH 0/5] ci: Get to green status on FreeBSD and MacOS

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 3/1/23 18:43, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 3/1/23 17:54, Eric Blake wrote:
>> I took the easy route of crippling what I couldn't get working, on the
>> grounds that partial coverage is better than none now that we have
>> Cirrus CI checking commits on additional platforms.
>>
>> This series got me to a green checkmark:
>> https://gitlab.com/ebblake/nbdkit/-/pipelines/793156983
>>
>> but depends on an as-yet uncommitted patch in libvirt-ci:
>> https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt-ci/-/merge_requests/360
>>
>> Eric Blake (5):
>>   ci: Expose more env vars needed by build.sh
>>   ci: Another attempt at MacOS
>>   rust: Skip CI builds on MacOS
>>   golang: Skip CI builds on MacOS and newer FreeBSD
>>   perl: Skip CI builds on newer FreeBSD
>>
>>  .gitlab-ci.yml                |  3 +++
>>  ci/cirrus/build.yml           |  3 +++
>>  ci/cirrus/macos-12.vars       |  4 ++--
>>  ci/gitlab.yml                 |  7 +++++++
>>  ci/gitlab/build-templates.yml | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  ci/gitlab/builds.yml          | 11 ++++++++---
>>  ci/manifest.yml               | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
>>  7 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> series
> Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek at redhat.com>
> 
> One question (for my understanding) about the context of patch#1:
> 
>            -e "s|[@]PYPI_PKGS@|$PYPI_PKGS|g"
> 
> what's this [@] notation? Why do we need to sink the at-sign into a
> bracket expression?

Ugh, is it possible that the replacement covers the file *itself* that
contains these sed scripts? IOW, that we don't use plain "@FOOBAR@" nor
"\\@FOOBAR@" because sed would then modify the command file itself?

(This seems extreme, admittedly, but I've got no other idea. Another
hack for the same purpose could have been @{1}FOOBAR@, as an extended
regex.)

Laszlo