On 7/6/11 1:52 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>>> I would not expect "sort -V" and a version test to disagree.
>>
>> The code that coreutils uses for 'sort -V' is part of gnulib - the
>> filevercmp module. That file (filevercmp.c) is pretty stable nowadays,
>> with the last algorithmic change being in Apr
On 07/06/2011 10:37 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 07/06/11 09:03, Chet Ramey wrote:
>>> /usr/bin/test ?
>>>
>>> Do this first in the binary then migrate to bash's test?
>>
>> I was actually making an argument for an entirely separate utility to do
>> this. That could be a shell script encapsulating t
On 07/06/11 10:19, Eric Blake wrote:
Oh, that's rather heavyweight - a command substitution and 3 pipeline
components. Why not just one child process, by using sort -c and a heredoc?
is_eq=false is_lt=false
if test "x$1" = "$x2"; then
is_eq=true
elif sort -cV el
On 7/5/11 8:59 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> The issue is extremely nontrivial.
>
> The normal case is to sort full releases. The goal in "sort -V" was to make
> the usual case easy, not to make an authoritative solution to the intractable
> problem. In any event, Chet doesn't think there is sufficie
On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 11:41:02AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> P.S. this check is really for any version below 2.6.27:
>
> - case $LINUXRELEASE in
> - # ext4 was in 2.6.22-2.6.26 but not stable enough to use
> - 2.6.2[0-9]*) enable_ext4='no' ;;
> - *) . ;;
>
> and might have b
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> The comment implies [2-6] but [0-6] is probably a safer bet, just in
> case someone backported the driver to an older kernel.
The code, itself, matched anything with a kernel version in the
20+something version, and my guess is that
Bruce Korb wrote:
> I wouldn't know. I use it myself a bit and I am now playing with
> Lustre fs code where they get it wrong because it is inconvenient to
> get it right. After seeing that, I thought I'd suggest it.
> ...
> P.S. this check is really for any version below 2.6.27:
>
> - case
Hi Chet,
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 7/2/11 3:49 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> Hi Chet, et al.,
>>
>> Given that sort(1GNU) now has a sort-by-version-ordering (sort -V),
>> it would seem reasonable to do version comparisons without having
>> to do a series of fork & execs.
On 7/2/11 3:49 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi Chet, et al.,
>
> Given that sort(1GNU) now has a sort-by-version-ordering (sort -V),
> it would seem reasonable to do version comparisons without having
> to do a series of fork & execs. In other words, abbreviate this:
>
> min_os_ver=`
> prin
