On Di, 02.01.24 13:49, Nils Kattenbeck (nilskem...@gmail.com) wrote: > > I'd be fine with adding MaxVersion=. Happy to review a patch, merge > > something like this (at least file an RFE issue) > > Should that be inclusive or exclusive? Naming it MaxVersion would > imply it to be inclusive though an exclusive bound would likely be > more useful most of the time. One could then specify MaxVersion=1.3.0 > in their 1.2.x images and once they have an upgrade path they would > explicitly raise the max version in e.g. 1.2.15. Otherwise they would > have to specify 1.99.99. > In retrospect a VersionBound= property with syntax similar to > ConditionKernelVersion= would have been better though I guess that > ship has sailed - or is it? Is sd-sysupdate still considered > experimental? Not sure if this warrants such a change though :shrug:
We do not allow "=" nor "<" in version strings, as per https://uapi-group.org/specifications/specs/version_format_specification/. Hence we could use that fact and say: "MaxVersion= <=47.11", "MaxVersion= <47.11" could be used to make the type of version comparison explicit. This would implement a tiny subset of the ConditionKernelVersion= logic, and simply default to imply <= if the comparison is not specified explicitly. Of course, a similar logic should then be implemented for MinVersion, i.e. >= and > > Should we continue this discussion on the mailing list or an issue? Issue is better. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin
