Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 6:21 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > But probably better is to just amend that to call it as "test-tool libc >> > is-glibc-2.34-or-newer" or whatever. Then just do: >> > >> > if (__GLIBC__ > 2 || (__GLIBC__ == 2 && 34 >= __GLIBC_MINOR__)) >> > return 0; >> > return 1; >> >> Yuck. Then we'd have yet another libc-is-glibc-2.36-or-newer >> option, too, in the future? > > Luckily that won't be needed, as this the original version (with expr) > is practically good enough even if it might be a little odd looking > and incorrect for 2.4 <= glibc <= 2.9 (which are over 10 years old). > > $ expr 2.34 \<= "2.34.9000" > 1 > $ expr 2.34 \<= "" > 0 Yeah, that is good. What I was trying to get at was to extend Ævar's one trivially to $ test-tool libc-is-at-or-later-than 2.34 so that we can deal with $ test-tool libc-is-at-or-later-than 2.36 for free, but if we do not have to do anything, that is even better ;-)
