On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 15:21 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 29/02/2024 15.08, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 14:47 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +if [[ -z ${TL_PV} ]] \
> > > > + && [[ ${EAPI} -ge 8 ]] \
> > >
> > > I am skeptical of this construct, as in the past we had non-numeric
> > > EAPIs. So I may have to go with EAPI == 8 for now. Input appreciated.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The eclass only supports EAPIs {7,8,...} so it should suffice to
> > blacklist EAPI=7.
>
> Fair point, but that would mean to remember to adjust this line once the
> eclass gets support for EAPI 9.
>
> It appears that bash does the right thing:
>
> $ if [[ "eapi-future" -gt 8 ]]; then echo "is greater than 8"; else echo
> "is NOT greater than 8"; fi
> is NOT greater than 8
>
> even considering
>
> $ if [[ "9-eapi-future" -gt 8 ]]; then echo "is greater than 8"; else
> echo "is NOT greater than 8"; fi
> is greater than 8
>
> which would be fine.
>
> Although I prefer the current approach, it is not a hill to die on for me.
> It is invalid to treat EAPI as an integer. The standard practice is to explicitly list old EAPIs, so that no changes need to preserve the new behavior for new EAPIs. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
