Re: [packages/rpm-pld-macros] - version 1.749: fixed _ver_* macros
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 07:07:54PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> 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
> > > 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.
Fixed in 1.750.
> > 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.
A little nicer proposal:
%if "%{_ver_ge '%{_rpmversion}' '4.6'}" == "1"
Both false comparison or unexpanded macro evaluates to false condition.
--
Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: [packages/rpm-pld-macros] - version 1.749: fixed _ver_* macros
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
> > 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 Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: [packages/rpm-pld-macros] - version 1.749: fixed _ver_* macros
On 27.09.2020 20:17, qboosh wrote:
> commit a04002a841905f8c84ca1c955e047676994c1ef2
> Author: Jakub Bogusz
> 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).
$ rpm -E '%{_ver_lt 0 0}'
1
$ rpm -E '%{_ver_lt 0 1}'
0
$ rpm -E '%{_ver_lt 1 0}'
1
$ rpm -E '%{_ver_ge 0 0}'
0
$ rpm -E '%{_ver_ge 5.4.15 4.6}'
0
$ rpm -q rpm-pld-macros-build
rpm-pld-macros-build-1.749-1.noarch
or how is it supposed to be used?
ie rapidjson has:
%if %{_ver_ge "%{_rpmversion}" "4.6"}
which I suppose does not work correctly at the moment.
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?
It seems to return same value for all cases:
$ rpm -E '%{?_ver_ge 0 0}'
1
$ rpm -E '%{?_ver_ge 0 1}'
1
$ rpm -E '%{?_ver_ge 1 0}'
1
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
