> From: Richard Melville <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:19:56 +0100 >
Richard, Your replies seem to always break the threading: could they instead please preserve the threading. > On 3 September 2017 at 19:42, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Richard Melville wrote: [ - re script processing of news-page release list.] > > > > <dt>LFS 8.1 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 8.1-rc2 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 8.1-rc1 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS Stable Version 8.0 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 8.0-rc1 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS Stable Version 7.10 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 7.10-rc1 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS Stable Systemd Version 7.9 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 7.9 Stable Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 7.9-rc2 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 7.9-rc1 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 7.8 Stable Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 7.8-rc1 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 7.7 Stable Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 7.7-rc1 Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 7.6 Stable Release</dt> > >> <dt>LFS 7.6-rc1 Release</dt> > >> > >> Is there any chance of arriving at some consistency? Maybe either: "LFS > >> <version number> Stable Release" or, as the latest states: "LFS <version > >> number> Release", for those that are not release candidates, obviously. > >> *IF* that release-list is being relied on and processed by a script, then the script is better [~'be liberal in what your code accepts as input, ...'] to just check - case-insensitively, independently, & irrespective of order - for the regexes 'release', 'stable', & '[[:blank:]\-]?rc[0-9]*'; and do some heuristics on the results. E.g. pseudo-code: $ if 'release' string in dt content: -> has_rel=1 else =0 . if 'stable' ..... -> has_stbl=1 else =0 . if '[[:blank:]\-]?rc[0-9]*' ... -> has_rc=1 else =0 . if has_rel==1 && has_stbl==1 && has_rc==0 then # is/looks-like a stable, non-rc, release. else-if . . else-if has_rel==1 && has_stbl==1 && has_rc==1 then # example error-/warning- state. else # default/error catchall-combination(s). endif. $ A still-kludgy but slightly less-so way, would be to parse e.g.: $ svn ls svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/tags/ . . 7.9-systemd/ 7.9-systemd-rc1/ 7.9-systemd-rc2/ 8.0/ 8.0-rc1/ 8.1/ 8.1-rc1/ 8.1-rc2/ lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2/ x86_64-POC/ $ > > > > That file is edited manually. As I said in my earlier message, I updated > > it to include 'Stable Version'. > > > > Yes, thanks for that, but if it is edited manually then why cannot the Sounds like what is being sought is a fairly standard type of scripters' ~api interface whereby the release version, rc/stable/..., &c can be read reliably - in a known reliable format and in a known reliable location (uri) . > [...] > > > > You could do something like: > > > > $ grep 'LFS.*Release' news.html | grep -v rc | \ > > > sed -r 's/.*([0-9].[0-9]).*/\1/' > > 8.1 > > 8.0 > > 7.1 > > 7.9 > > 7.9 > > 7.8 > > 7.7 > > 7.6 That wouldn't detect reliably-enough when is a stable version released; e.g. an -rcN would confound it. > > [...] > akh -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
