search

FFmpeg / FFV1

The FFV1 lossless video codec specification.
Other
154 stars 35 forks source link

Test mmark version in Makefile experiment #236

Closed michaelni closed 3 years ago

michaelni commented 3 years ago

Portability, unknown but the existing Makefile already looks GNU dependant

Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer michael@niedermayer.cc

michaelni commented 3 years ago

If someone wants to turn this in a full check of all tools that is somewhat portable. Please do not hesitate :) If not i might try to improve it based on comments i will receive here but my Makefile knowledge is slim

dericed commented 3 years ago

equally slim knowledge here, but am very excited to test this.

With 2.2.9 installed, the output is as expected.

With no mmark installed, then:

make         
RFC rendering has been tested with mmark version 2.2.8, xml2rfc 2.32.0, xmlstarlet 1.6.1, pdfcrop v1.38, and pdf2svg 0.2.3, please ensure these are installed and recent enough.
cat rfc_frontmatter.md "ffv1.md" rfc_backmatter.md | grep -v "^AART:" | grep -v "^SVGC" | grep -v "{V4}" | sed "s|^AART:||g;s|{V3}||g;s|SVGI:||g;s|@BUILD_DATE@|2020-09-30|" > draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17.md
test ` mmark --version | sed 's/\.\([0-9][0-9]\)/\1/g;s/\./0/g' ` -ge 20208 && touch mmark.version-ok || (echo mmark version 2.2.8 or later is required && exit 1)
/bin/sh: mmark: command not found
/bin/sh: line 0: test: -ge: unary operator expected
mmark version 2.2.8 or later is required
make: *** [mmark.version-ok] Error 1

With mmark 2.2.5

make
RFC rendering has been tested with mmark version 2.2.8, xml2rfc 2.32.0, xmlstarlet 1.6.1, pdfcrop v1.38, and pdf2svg 0.2.3, please ensure these are installed and recent enough.
test ` mmark --version | sed 's/\.\([0-9][0-9]\)/\1/g;s/\./0/g' ` -ge 20208 && touch mmark.version-ok || (echo mmark version 2.2.8 or later is required && exit 1)
mmark version 2.2.8 or later is required
make: *** [mmark.version-ok] Error 1

So looks good to me, but could use a test first to ensure that the program is there before next testing the version.

michaelni commented 3 years ago

So looks good to me, but could use a test first to ensure that the program is there before next testing the version.

Ive slightly changed it so it wont produce a confusing error if the tool isnt there but without an explicit 2nd check and pushed that, thx