On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 04:41:21PM +0200, Jan Palus wrote: > On 27.09.2020 20:17, qboosh wrote: > > commit a04002a841905f8c84ca1c955e047676994c1ef2 > > Author: Jakub Bogusz <qbo...@pld-linux.org> > > Date: Sun Sep 27 20:20:03 2020 +0200 > > > > - version 1.749: fixed _ver_* macros > ... > > -# BuildRequires: rpmbuild(macros) >= 1.748 > > -%_ver_lt() %(test rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1 -eq 2; echo $?) > > -%_ver_ge() !%(test rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1 -eq 2; echo $?) > > +# BuildRequires: rpmbuild(macros) >= 1.749 > > +%_ver_lt() %(test $(rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1; echo $?) -eq > > 2; echo $?) > > +%_ver_ge() %(test $(rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1; echo $?) -ne > > 2; echo $?) > > Isn't it the other way? -ne 2 for_ver_lt and -eq 2 for _ver_ge? > > "Satisfied condition" in terms of test return code (0) is the opposite > of "satisfied condition" as interpreted by rpm (1).
Ouch, you're right. > ie rapidjson has: > > %if %{_ver_ge "%{_rpmversion}" "4.6"} > > which I suppose does not work correctly at the moment. After fixing conditions it would work. But throws parse error when too old (or no) macros are installed, so I tried the following: > while glabels has: > > %if 0%{?_ver_ge "%{_rpmversion}" "4.6"} > > but I don't quite get it, I thought %{? construct is only to check if > something is defined or does it somehow interpret return value? %{?macro} construct returns macro value if it's defined. But unfortunately it appears that doesn't pass arguments to macro, so the result is equal to just %{_ver_ge} :/ %{?_ver_ge:%_ver_ge x y} works, but needs more keystrokes... I'll try to look for nicer solution. -- Jakub Bogusz http://qboosh.pl/ _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en