Closed #1217 via #1233.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#event-3377935109___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-mai
To further elaborate on that, if deemed necessary/useful, a macro primitive
such as %{V:...} could be added for *converting to* the expression syntax. Eg
assuming the proposed pythonisque syntax, %{V:1.2} would simply expand to
v"1.2" which the expression parser would then understand as a native
It's not just a matter of what's nice, it's to a large degree also a question
of what's technically possible and available.
The quest at hand is to find the most reasonable syntax to identify strings as
versions at the most fundamental level of the "rpm language" which is the
expression parser,
I don't understand how the discussion come from something reasonably nice and
expressive which is within current RPM functionality such as `%if %{vercmp
%{python3_version} >= 3.9}` to proposing something weird such as `@1.2@ < @1.0@`
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
> v"%{php_version}" < v"5.6"
I initially failed to register the Python connection. I kinda like this as it's
a far stronger hint at what it is than the other variants, and has precedent in
at least one major language.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply t
While `@1.2@ < @1.0@` looks quite OK, when combined with macros, it's not very
readable either:
```spec
%if @%{php_version}@ < @5.6@
```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-manage
Yup, the way the expression parser works there are basically two possibilities:
either tag the version strings or the comparison operator, somehow. I think the
former is the far less weird option.
@ does ensure the reader attention more than any of the quoting variants:
`@1.2 < @1.0`
`@1.2@ < @
Another option would be having special operators. But this is also confusion as
we use the normal `<`, `>`, ... in dependencies. I also don't have a good
suggestion. `%if %{php_version} ver>= "1.2.3"` looks weird, too. But may be
someone has an better idea.
--
You are receiving this because
Reopened #1217.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#event-3335805799___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists
Closed #1217.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#event-3335805261___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.r
So, here are couple examples. I haven't checked if they don't collide with
existing syntax.
```spec
# int comparison, fallbacks to version comparison if at least one operand has
nondigits?
%if %{php_version} < 5.6
# string comparison, produces incorrect results some time
%if "%{php_version}" <
Yeah... might get too weird really. Another, saner option might be using single
quotes (or similar) to denote rpm version strings over regular strings.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-s
also "01" == "1"
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628493078___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-main
Hmm. The other hmm is that rpmvercmp() can actually return 0 for strings that
are very obviously different (#925), which can get decidedly weird.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-softwar
Yeah - right now would actually be the optimal time to implement this as there
are some other incompatibilities in the 4.16 expression parser as well, and the
macro side of this is all new now, so there's not that much that is
incompatible.
There are some technical obstacles though, for exampl
right. ok then, comparing `""` as stings works for me \o/ Obviously, that'll be
4.16+ only, so in Fedora terms, rawhide+.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/
We can't really hijack integers because we support simple mathematical
operations on them besides just comparison, and might be some other technical
restrictions. In any case, string comparisons in specs typically are either ==
or !=, in which case treating them as versions wouldn't affect the o
OTOH this is backwards incompatible and a bit weird.
What if `""` would still compare strings, but without `""` would compare
versions? That is backwards compatible with comparing integers.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view
...except that versions are not integers, they're strings, and the expression
parser now explicitly separates the two. So we could make the string comparison
*be* version comparison, at which point you could do this in a spec
```
%if "%{python3_version}" >= "3.9"
...
%endif
```
...and it'd do t
This is closely related to, but perhaps not a duplicate of #897.
Having an actually usable version comparison macro is one of the rare things
that truly are generic enough to belong to rpm, it's actually rather hysterical
how little we have in that space.
This being rpm, versions are the primar
Hello. I had a recent discussion with @Conan-Kudo about version comparison in
spec conditionals.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/467NMLL3DTRZQBEX5LPFU6ZD5P56SSF3/
So I dug a bit and found the excellent `rpm.vercmp()` Lua function.
Unfor
21 matches
Mail list logo
