On Wed, May 31 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
> Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Should be something like $Name: release_11_83$ when one checks out a
> copy with cvs co -r release_11_83
Ah, you had in mind to add "$Name: ...$" in the spec file and
construct the "Release:" from this, right?
>> The patch below seems[1] to allow the inclusion of the date from the
>> command line (or from the Makefile).
[...]
>> $ rpmbuild -ba --define "micro_version _20060531" auctex.spec
>> $ rpmbuild -ba auctex.spec
[...]
> 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.
I know that "rpmbuild --rebuild --define ... *.src.rpm" works so I
expect it to work for rpmbuild -ta *.tgz as well. But unless I commit
my patch I can't tell for sure. Should I? (I'd rename
"micro_version" to "rpm_release" or something similar).
Bye, Reiner.
--
,,,
(o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- | PGP key available | http://rsteib.home.pages.de/
_______________________________________________
auctex-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
