From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 778E1158041 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:37:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F217DE2A8D; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA44EE2A01 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <980d8db20e0a28535929ef75f3a5d6683cf331c8.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/3] texlive-module.eclass: implicitly set TL_PV if not explicitly set From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:37:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5a0b89a4-a742-4ce3-88ad-63f5b98e346e@gentoo.org> References: <20240229133839.292726-1-flow@gentoo.org> <20240229133839.292726-2-flow@gentoo.org> <5a0b89a4-a742-4ce3-88ad-63f5b98e346e@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-kRgFzWB5srHHv4VtWXIy" User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 7d64e2b4-1fd7-45b5-ae7c-ffe5371a7cbe X-Archives-Hash: 65993031f515f0a3602630764d08078c --=-kRgFzWB5srHHv4VtWXIy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: > > > > =20 > > > > +if [[ -z ${TL_PV} ]] \ > > > > + && [[ ${EAPI} -ge 8 ]] \ > > >=20 > > > I am skeptical of this construct, as in the past we had non-numeric > > > EAPIs. So I may have to go with EAPI =3D=3D 8 for now. Input apprecia= ted. > > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > The eclass only supports EAPIs {7,8,...} so it should suffice to > > blacklist EAPI=3D7. >=20 > Fair point, but that would mean to remember to adjust this line once the= =20 > eclass gets support for EAPI 9. >=20 > It appears that bash does the right thing: >=20 > $ if [[ "eapi-future" -gt 8 ]]; then echo "is greater than 8"; else echo= =20 > "is NOT greater than 8"; fi > is NOT greater than 8 >=20 > even considering >=20 > $ if [[ "9-eapi-future" -gt 8 ]]; then echo "is greater than 8"; else=20 > echo "is NOT greater than 8"; fi > is greater than 8 >=20 > which would be fine. >=20 > Although I prefer the current approach, it is not a hill to die on for me= . >=20 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. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-kRgFzWB5srHHv4VtWXIy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFGBAABCgAwFiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAmXglpoSHG1nb3JueUBn ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJEGOa2uIyniQOk1IH/10zhZx3EU+c7iMpumLeh2q1kmF0ycf9 GvLEzGE5e1UfQ9qycfsU4leaW9ZhE1R3Mz6V5N8zz/OOufyd5ouyWs7RIjXlMFOj R0TYrQO9FsD5u6BqhbmeK/lEXxZUzomx7l+99KGZLMm75kQWLZhZoO8jP/G/AGFp xK74qCRCs/N3E4NBSS9rPpPBNoCxI45ffxErzU/JTsK/UeDEIs5MMN37PK5LuWNx /P3EkNIsVqlJ4iGYT4y1uRpwhZUz4FTvvuuVPLX/BWY1krPP/HSYWrJMou3iowpY FspFQC2smj5y1irUd6qdeJop15THeON9qB5I99IhPEZ6izLujoAGK2k= =LnCE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-kRgFzWB5srHHv4VtWXIy--