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?