That is to say that I believe the package names should take the format
version-increment.<date>
where version is the output of 'git describe' which could be:
0.6.1 for a tagged release
or
0.6.1-2-g1eb400d for a version that is two commits past 0.6.1 with a git hash of 1eb400d
-steve
On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Steve Loranz wrote:
By explicitly setting the version and using two separate targets for
generating the package, you enable generating a "release" that is not what is
tagged as a release in git. By using 'git describe' for the version, even if you
use two separate make targets to toggle including a timestamp, you guarantee that the
version in the package name matches what came out of git. I'm not in favor of dumping
'git describe' for optionally appending the git hash.
-steve
On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:02 AM, James Laska wrote:
>>> Additionally, I imagine we want this %{release} format only for
>>> non-tagged git-built packages. For official tagged releases, I presume
>>> a standard numbered %{release} is desired?
>>
>> Yes, that is exactly right. The "from git" builds are
>> <version>-0.<date>git<githash>, while the official release
builds are
>> <version+1>-1
>
> How do you make the distinction now for aeolus-{conductor,configure}
> builds? Is a different make target used?
>
> $ make rpms # official rpm build
> $ make test-rpms ? # interim rpm development build?
_______________________________________________
aeolus-devel mailing list
aeolus-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/aeolus-devel