On 2013-10-16 02:21 , James Berry wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:36, Rainer Müller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The question would be whether we want macosx_version to story "10.X" >>> only as it did before or fix the comparisons to use version comparison. >> >> We should fix the comparisons. >> >>> Writing this condition as >>> [vercmp $macosx_version 10.5] >= 0 && [vercmp $macosx_version 10.6] < 0 >>> seems a bit cumbersome. >> >> Cumbersome yet correct. > > Maybe we just need to add a new version comparison verb, like > vercmp_major_minor that compares only the major and minor segments of the > version.This would accomplish both goals I think: simplify the version > comparison while still allowing us to keep the full version around for > “correctness”.
It's not a matter of "correct" or "incorrect", we get to define what the variable should mean. I can only guess that Jeremy thinks it should contain the full version by analogy with os.version? If that's the case, then we could add a new variable analogous to os.major that works just like macosx_version does now and can be directly compared for equality (and used in all the places that macosx_version currently is). Or we could not break compatibility with everything that uses macosx_version and add a new variable that contains the full OS X version. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
