Dne 21.9.2011 13:32, Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 08:40 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
>> I don't quite understand. Could you please elaborate what's wrong with
>> the original approach you suggested? That means one configure argument
>> allowing to specify the version with a default version string if no
>> such argument is provided.
>
> Well, for one thing what I asked for in the first place was
> impossible :-/
>
> We can't have multi-line version strings in a configure option; autoconf
> can't handle it. (All that happens is that the config.h is broken)
Actually, it can handle it. Although not directly (you have to put \n on
the end of line):
$ ./configure --with-distro-version="-3.fc15\n\
> Built: 2011-09-07" --enable-silent-rules
$ ./sssd --version
1.7.0-3.fc15
Built: 2011-09-07
I can confirm this works as described by Pavel.
> So I was trying to think of an alternative that would serve our
needs
> better. Though admittedly, at this point I'm starting to wonder at the
> usefulness of this feature at all.
>
> So my new thought was that we should default to displaying a version
> that includes build-time information. Then if we wanted to display just
> an official version (or a distro-specific build) we could do so by using
> a --release argument.
>
> This way at least, we would be able to identify work-in-progress builds
> easily as compared to official release builds.
I don't know if that will do any good. The only thing it will do is make it
possible to distinguish between work-in-progress build and official release.
This can be achieved by current patch as well, you can add a value to
PRERELEASE_VERSION when releasing new tarball (of course, the semantic of the
PRERELEASE_VERSION would be a bit different at that point). Due to this, I'd
like to consider this patch ACKed.
Any other opinions?
Thanks
Jan