From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ih2SK-00052k-GN for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:20:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l9EC9Whf025675; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:09:32 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l9EC6lQ1021898 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:06:47 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCF36533B for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:06:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.024 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.508, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rCdoToREGKlX for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:06:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259CF64E48 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ih2En-0006KM-HX for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:06:29 +0000 Received: from 82.153.74.222 ([82.153.74.222]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:06:29 +0000 Received: from slong by 82.153.74.222 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:06:29 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-cluster/pvfs2: ChangeLog pvfs2-2.6.3-r1.ebuild Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:10:17 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20071014063029.GT23990@supernova> <20071014064540.GA27397@phaenix.haell.com> <20071014075021.GU23990@supernova> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.153.74.222 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 9bf33314-5c9b-407d-b0df-64d4c0940742 X-Archives-Hash: 43830fa5cba12e4ad97a21c2115c1ab2 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 23:45 Sat 13 Oct , Drake Wyrm wrote: >> Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> > On 13:36 Sat 13 Oct , Matti Bickel (mabi) wrote: >> > > if kernel_is gt 2 6 20 ; then >> > > epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PV}-register_sysctl_table.patch >> > > fi >> > > >> > > if kernel_is ge 2 6 22 ; then >> > > epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PV}-kmem-and-dtor-fix.patch >> > > fi >> > >> > Mixing 'gt' and 'ge' is a bad idea. >> >> Just outa curiosity, why? > > Because it's inconsistent and one generally assumes that people will be > consistent with the way they test numbers. That way you only need to > read the number rather than continually checking every single line to > see how exactly it's tested for. > I don't see how this is inconsistent either: two tests are needed, so that both patches are only applied for >=2.6.22 and first only if >2.6.20. (If the eclass performs inconsistently, that would need to be fixed.) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list