On 2013-06-15 16:17:17 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 01:21:11 +0200 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > [...] > > On 2013-06-10 21:00:54 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] > > > I agree that it would be useful, but I am afraid that implementing the > > > parser for such options would be somewhat of an overkill for a simple > > > tool like apt-listbugs... > > > > I think a list of filters could be both simple and sufficient. > > e.g. with a syntax like: > > > > apt-listbugs -f s:critical,grave,serious -f s:important,T:security apt > > This would still be a significant rewrite of the filtering features: > apt-listbugs currently queries the BTS (via SOAP) for bugs of the > desired severities, and then drops all the bugs that should be filtered > out (based on tags, bug numbers, and so forth...). > Hence all the filters are in AND with each other "by design", I would > almost say.
I think that you could do something similar: query the BTS for bugs of the desired severities (on my example: critical, grave, serious, and important), and then drop all the bugs that should be filtered out (based on *severities*, tags, bug numbers, and so forth...). To implement the OR, an additional loop (on filters) would be needed; bugs should be regarded as being dropped by default, and in the loop, each condition should be reversed to mark the bug as kept instead of dropping it. > > However perhaps this won't happen very often. > > I re-iterate my suggestion to try this strategy and to let me know how > it worked. It's a bit slow because it seems that the bug reports are retrieved twice (they are not cached). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
