From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [64.233.182.185] (helo=nf-out-0910.google.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HM9Fw-0007XA-Hx for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:49:06 +0100 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l24so300552nfc for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.8.15 with SMTP id l15mr1922136nfi.1172609340998; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:49:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from CUBE ( [82.193.98.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c28sm3166237nfb.2007.02.27.12.48.59; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:49:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:49:07 +0200 From: Paul Sokolovsky X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <149482102.20070227224907@gmail.com> To: Koen Kooi In-Reply-To: <45E496B2.5020109@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> References: <407130732.20070227223500@gmail.com> <45E496B2.5020109@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] base_less_or_equal() for numerical value testing in OE X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:49:08 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Koen, Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 10:38:10 PM, you wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > Paul Sokolovsky schreef: >> This code was committed, as it doesn't affect any existing aspect of >> OE. Please feel free to tweak it, and of course use! > So this isn't an RFC, just a statement of fact I had it in my tree for a week now, tested, so just decided to commit it, taking into account that it follows existing base_conditional() signature, doesn't affect anything else, and offers capability both needed and simple. >> Please feel free to tweak it, and of course use! I mean this. If there're better ideas on naming, etc., these can be easily applied or discussed. We may want to discuss the whole situation with such checks in OE: anything else needed/missing? are we satisfied with such a solution for checks? etc, etc. -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com