[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print binaries of non-matching arch in the warning/error message (PR #4060)

[Michal Domonkos]

@dmnks commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1640,6 +1640,60 @@ rpmRC rpmfcApply(rpmfc fc)
     return rc;
 }
 
+static string rpmfcPrettyFType(rpmfc fc, unsigned ix)
+{
+    string ftype = fc->ftype[ix];
+    size_t len = ftype.find(' ', 10);
+    return ftype.substr(0, len);
+}
+
+static rpmRC rpmfcCheckPackageColor(rpmfc fc)
+{
+    Package pkg = fc->pkg;
+    const char *a = headerGetString(pkg->header, RPMTAG_ARCH);
+    char *nvr;
+    string msg, type, bins;
+    unsigned ix;
+    int color;

I wasn't sure if we generally wanted to keep all declarations at the top of a function (or scope), there's no clear precedent in the code base. But ack, it makes more sense to declare them when they're actually used.

And taking scope (code blocks) into account is a no brainer of course, that I missed completely :sweat_smile: Thanks!

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/4060#discussion_r2592706651
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/4060/review/3544785115 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20251205/48d8b7e1/attachment-0001.htm>