From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54EBC1FF15E for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 10:57:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 67D141D8BA; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 10:57:12 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 10:56:39 +0100 To: "Shannon Sterz" Message-Id: X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20251120145031.550340-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20251120145031.550340-2-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Shannon Sterz" X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1763978164959 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.080 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox 1/5] proxmox-upgrade-checks: fix meta package version check X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On Mon Nov 24, 2025 at 10:54 AM CET, Shannon Sterz wrote: > On Thu Nov 20, 2025 at 4:08 PM CET, Stefan Hanreich wrote: >> On 11/20/25 4:03 PM, Shannon Sterz wrote: >>> ah thanks for catching this, i somehow missed this, i'll need to ping my >>> series finally switching pdm over to this crate again. anyhow, for now >>> this is fine, though i would appreciate this approach a bit more: >>> >>> ``` >>> if let Some(old_version) = meta_pkg.and_then(|m| m.old_version.as_ref()) { >>> let pkg_version = Regex::new(r"^(\d+)\.(\d+)[.-](\d+)")?; >>> let captures = pkg_version.captures(old_version); >>> ``` >> >> yeah, this seems indeed better - Idk why I always default to map over >> and_then in such cases :P as discussed off-list i'll adapt this patch as outlined here and add it to my series trying to factor out the upgrading checking logic so we can unify it. _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel