Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 31 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> [1] Before upgrading to the final 11.83 version, you need to "rpm -e"
>>> the pre-11.83 RPM. "rpm -U" wont work (unless we bump the
>>> "Release" version in the spec file from 0 to 1 for the final RPM).
>>
>> If anybody has a clue about RPM macros and such: we'd want 11.83-1
>> for a version with a non-empty $Name: $ tag after keyword
>> expansion,
>
> I don't understand your intend. Did you really mean "Name:" and not
> "Release:" or something?
(info "(cvs) Keyword List")
`$Name$'
Tag name used to check out this file. The keyword is expanded
only if one checks out with an explicit tag name. For example,
when running the command `cvs co -r first', the keyword expands to
`Name: first'.
Should be something like $Name: release_11_83$ when one checks out a
copy with cvs co -r release_11_83
>> and likely something like 0-20060529 otherwise.
>
> Using a scheme like "0-20060529" (with "-") doesn't work (an
> underscore is okay):
Well, I have no clue about the details: I just thought I had seen a
scheme like that for snapshot RPMs before.
> | error: line 16: Illegal char '-' in release: Release: 0-20060531.suse
>
> The patch below seems[1] to allow the inclusion of the date from the
> command line (or from the Makefile).
This wouldn't work for
rpmbuild -ta auctex-11.83.tgz
right? I was trying to come up with a scheme that would "do the right
thing(TM)" if a user built straight from release or snapshot tarball.
It is not really very important, since we have not actually had a
flurry of mislabeled RPM files distributed by other people. It just
seemed like a good idea in some respect.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
auctex-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
