Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: support rpm version comparison in expression parser (#1220)
Yeah, I should read the comments instead of just looking at the "Files Changed" tab... -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220#issuecomment-628682647___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: support rpm version comparison in expression parser (#1220)
I'll try to submit a more complete version tomorrowish, there's some bulldozing in order... -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220#issuecomment-628681865___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
> v"%{php_version}" < v"5.6"
I initially failed to register the Python connection. I kinda like this as it's
a far stronger hint at what it is than the other variants, and has precedent in
at least one major language.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628661165___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: support rpm version comparison in expression parser (#1220)
@mlschroe , as noted in the description and commit messages: "this isn't right as it uses rpmvercmp() whereas this would need to compare entire EVR labels, but suffices for PoC purposes." -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220#issuecomment-628651978___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
While `@1.2@ < @1.0@` looks quite OK, when combined with macros, it's not very
readable either:
```spec
%if @%{php_version}@ < @5.6@
```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628651033___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: support rpm version comparison in expression parser (#1220)
Listed in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628526414 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220#issuecomment-628650303___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: support rpm version comparison in expression parser (#1220)
How about supporting EVR syntax instead of that rpmvercmp() call? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220#issuecomment-628650459___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: support rpm version comparison in expression parser (#1220)
Another possibility would be the pythonish/perlish `v"1.2.3"`. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220#issuecomment-628647876___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}" does not immediately print the output (#1215)
Just a word of caution: rpmluaRunScript() and rpmluaRunScriptFile() are not considered public API and are not available in the public headers on C side, although the symbols are accessible in the ABI. So they are subject to change without further notice, although the likelihood of that happening doesn't seem that great, they've been exactly the way are since their inception 16 years ago... -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1215#issuecomment-628594473___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}" does not immediately print the output (#1215)
Wonderfully weird stuff :smile: -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1215#issuecomment-628588855___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}" does not immediately print the output (#1215)
Here is my draft blog post about how to get a nicer console https://hackmd.io/@hroncok/SyNjuxcqL -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1215#issuecomment-628586104___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}" does not immediately print the output (#1215)
Adding a native way to flush the output shouldn't be hard. This is code that for all practical purposes nobody has touched in 16 years so it's not surprising if its a bit rusty and squeaky... -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1215#issuecomment-628583853___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
Yup, the way the expression parser works there are basically two possibilities: either tag the version strings or the comparison operator, somehow. I think the former is the far less weird option. @ does ensure the reader attention more than any of the quoting variants: `@1.2 < @1.0` `@1.2@ < @1.0@` Another "easy" special marker would be # but that seems entirely wrong for the purpose. `#1.2 < #1.0` -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628579751___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}" does not immediately print the output (#1215)
Or if there was a way to flush to the output the content collected by the macro engine -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1215#issuecomment-628566016___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}" does not immediately print the output (#1215)
I think it could be enough if the documentation give more reasonable example
such as:
~~~
rpm.expand("%{echo:some message}")
~~~
Which provides expected output:
~~~
$ rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}"
RPM Interactive Lua 5.3 Interpreter
> rpm.expand("%{echo:some message}")
some message
> rpm.expand("%{echo:%{_bindir}}")
/usr/bin
>
~~~
Or IDK what else one could be interested.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1215#issuecomment-628564806___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: support rpm version comparison in expression parser (#1220)
Thank you! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220#issuecomment-628557926___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: support rpm version comparison in expression parser (#1220)
Inspired by #1217, this is a proof-of-concept patch series to add support for
version comparison in the expression parser, allowing things like this to do
the right thing:
```
%if `%{python_version}` < `3.9`
...
%endif
```
...and also macros, eg
```
$ ./rpm --eval '%["5.3.0" == "5.3.0+"]'
0
$ ./rpm --eval '%[`5.3.0` == `5.3.0+`]'
1
```
Backticks are used to denote versions as opposed to regular strings not because
I particularly like them but just because I had to use something and single
quotes get painful when testing with shell.
As noted in the commit messages, this isn't right as it uses rpmvercmp()
whereas this would need to compare entire EVR labels, but suffices for PoC
purposes.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220
-- Commit Summary --
* Move rpmVersionCompare() to headerutil.c for better layer match
* Move rpmvercmp() to librpmio
* Support rpm version comparison in expressions
-- File Changes --
M Makefile.am (1)
M lib/Makefile.am (2)
M lib/headerutil.c (21)
M lib/rpmlib.h (10)
M preinstall.am (4)
M rpmio/Makefile.am (2)
M rpmio/expression.c (55)
R rpmio/rpmvercmp.c (20)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220.diff
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1220
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
Since the high level discussion of whether this shall be split or not, can we please merge this for now to avoid the base diverging? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#issuecomment-628550526___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
Another option would be having special operators. But this is also confusion as
we use the normal `<`, `>`, ... in dependencies. I also don't have a good
suggestion. `%if %{php_version} ver>= "1.2.3"` looks weird, too. But may be
someone has an better idea.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628530128___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
Reopened #1217. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#event-3335805799___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
Closed #1217. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#event-3335805261___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
So, here are couple examples. I haven't checked if they don't collide with
existing syntax.
```spec
# int comparison, fallbacks to version comparison if at least one operand has
nondigits?
%if %{php_version} < 5.6
# string comparison, produces incorrect results some time
%if "%{php_version}" < "5.6"
# single quotes (easy, but it doesn't actually scream *this is version
comparison*)
%if '%{php_version}' < '5.6'
# backticks (easy, as above, but at least screams "I am special")
%if `%{php_version}` < `5.6`
# string prefixes (see Python f-strings, b-strings and r-strings; confusing to
non-Python people)
%if v"%{php_version}" < v"5.6"
# square brackets (special enough, but screams "I am an array with 1 element"
to me)
%if [%{php_version}] < [5.6]
# square brackets around the whole thing (why? screams "wtf")
%if [%{php_version} < 5.6]
# special %if like %ifarch (maybe too much?)
%ifver %{php_version} < 5.6
# a prefix without quotes (both confusing)
%if @%{php_version} < @5.6
%if $%{php_version} < $5.6
# a special macro (easy to understand a bit more complicated to write)
%if %{vercmp %{php_version} < 5.6}
# a special macro to mark the values as versions (a bit more complicated to
write as well)
%if %{ver:%{php_version}} < %{ver:5.6}
# golging the above (a bit more complicated to read)
%if %{V:%{php_version}} < %{V:5.6}
```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628526414___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
Yeah... might get too weird really. Another, saner option might be using single quotes (or similar) to denote rpm version strings over regular strings. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628508988___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient %version without tilde macro (#1219)
technically, since we are at RPM level, I wouldn't mind having this syntax:
%{version//~}
To remove whatever symbols I like.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1219#issuecomment-628496489___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
also "01" == "1" -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628493078___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
Hmm. The other hmm is that rpmvercmp() can actually return 0 for strings that are very obviously different (#925), which can get decidedly weird. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628490659___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
Yeah - right now would actually be the optimal time to implement this as there are some other incompatibilities in the 4.16 expression parser as well, and the macro side of this is all new now, so there's not that much that is incompatible. There are some technical obstacles though, for example rpmvercmp() and a higher level version parsing/comparison (which isn't really exported at all) needing moving to librpmio from librpm. Hmm. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628484872___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient %version without tilde macro (#1219)
As I noted above, the problem with "upstream version" is that the pre/post suffixes *are* upstream. So upstream version and the bare version are two different things. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1219#issuecomment-628482024___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
right. ok then, comparing `""` as stings works for me \o/ Obviously, that'll be 4.16+ only, so in Fedora terms, rawhide+. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628481897___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient %version without tilde macro (#1219)
I think `%{upstream_version}` would be better. However, probably in this case,
we should just define %{pypi_version}, %{semver_version} because those have
different rules.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1219#issuecomment-628480076___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
We can't really hijack integers because we support simple mathematical
operations on them besides just comparison, and might be some other technical
restrictions. In any case, string comparisons in specs typically are either ==
or !=, in which case treating them as versions wouldn't affect the outcome. And
looking at Fedora specs, there are numerous examples where people actually use
just that (apparently oblivious to it not doing what they expect):
```
%if "%{php_version}" < "5.6"
%if "%(pkg-config --version 2>/dev/null)" < "0.20.0"
%if "%{version}" > "2.12"
%if "%{_qt5_version}" < "5.12.0"
%if "%version" < "0.20"
%if 0%{?rhel} && "%rhel" < "5"
```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628480292___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient %version without tilde macro (#1219)
> As for passing passing empty strings (or strings with spaces etc) as a macro
> argument, use %{quote:}
Thanks. Ugly, but works.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1219#issuecomment-628475121___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient %version without tilde macro (#1219)
I get your point. But before we come ou with a concept of native "pre/post
tag", I think we should have a way to address this in a common way. I like
`%{bare_version}` (not "ursine" please).
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1219#issuecomment-628475009___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: pass parametric macro options and arguments to Lua natively (#1092)
I was about to explore this as well, thanks for filing this. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1092#issuecomment-628473072___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
OTOH this is backwards incompatible and a bit weird. What if `""` would still compare strings, but without `""` would compare versions? That is backwards compatible with comparing integers. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628472204___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}" does not immediately print the output (#1215)
I meant something a bit more sophisticated. I have so far:
```python
#!/usr/bin/python3
import sys
from ctypes import cdll, c_char_p
librpmio = cdll.LoadLibrary("librpmio.so.9")
adjust_path = b"""
if os.getenv("LUA_PATH") then
package.path = os.getenv("LUA_PATH") .. ";" .. package.path
end
"""
# first argument is an "rpmlua" pointer, but uses global one when NULL
# second argument is code
# third argument is "name", used in errors, reasonable default when NULL
librpmio.rpmluaRunScript(None, c_char_p(adjust_path), None)
if len(sys.argv) > 1:
sys.argv[-1] = '/dev/stdin' if sys.argv[-1] == '-' else sys.argv[-1]
# first argument as above, second argument is path
librpmio.rpmluaRunScriptFile(None, c_char_p(sys.argv[-1].encode("utf-8")))
else:
librpmio.rpmluaRunScript(None, c_char_p(b"rpm.interactive()"), None)
```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1215#issuecomment-628471186___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
...except that versions are not integers, they're strings, and the expression
parser now explicitly separates the two. So we could make the string comparison
*be* version comparison, at which point you could do this in a spec
```
%if "%{python3_version}" >= "3.9"
...
%endif
```
...and it'd do the actually right thing without any extra macros, but also
available in the macro side through %[] and %{expr:...}.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628471158___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}" does not immediately print the output (#1215)
If by "something like the above" you mean something that allows actual interactive experience, sure :sweat_smile: -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1215#issuecomment-628460983___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}" does not immediately print the output (#1215)
I have it all figured out. Blog post coming. Would you consider adding something like the above to rpm itself? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1215#issuecomment-628455808___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --eval "%{lua:rpm.interactive()}" does not immediately print the output (#1215)
Ouch :rofl: The interactive interpreter was added years before my time, but as far as I can recall, you're the first person *ever* to try actually using it. There may be some resident fauna there... :beetle: :bug: -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1215#issuecomment-628453859___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient version comparison macro (#1217)
This is closely related to, but perhaps not a duplicate of #897. Having an actually usable version comparison macro is one of the rare things that truly are generic enough to belong to rpm, it's actually rather hysterical how little we have in that space. This being rpm, versions are the primary numerical entities we deal with, and as such could easily warrant something a bit special. I'm myself wondering if we could somehow expose the version comparison in our expression parser - as we now can do things like ``` $ rpm --eval "%[0<1]" 1 ``` ...it'd seem fitting to be able to do this with same ease with EVRs too. I don't have any concrete suggestions offhand though. @mlschroe ? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1217#issuecomment-628447670___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Lua rpm.error() function (#1218)
No disagreement there, `rpm.expand("%{error:...}")` is just absurd. And so are
many other things hidden behind rpm.expand().
This falls into the same general category of better Lua integration (or in
other words, "make using Lua in rpm sane") as #1092.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1218#issuecomment-628435164___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient %version without tilde macro (#1219)
This was actually suggested here first (see #722) and rejected in this form
with the notion that there might be something there however. So of the problem
is figuring what that "something like" is.
Singling out tilde seems odd. I could imagine there being cases where you want
these "rpm embellishments" stripped out, but that should then also cover caret
(and any other such thing that might get added in the future), which calls for
a more generic name. "Upstream version" was mentioned in the PR, but that
doesn't sound right either because the tilde/caret parts typically *are* from
upstream. Something like "bare version" (any phonetic resemblance to large four
feet mammals is purely coincidental), *but* this makes me think we're going
backwards here, and that we should start by disassembling Version to its
components at the "source" already.
There's this "main" or "bare" version which is typically something like
[major[.minor[.micro[.nano and these can have pre- and post-modifiers that
affect the sorting. Should spec have separate tags to declare these as
individual components that rpm arranges into a Version as we know it? Or
something...
As for passing passing empty strings (or strings with spaces etc) as a macro
argument, use %{quote:}
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1219#issuecomment-628431525___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
