Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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?
Right. And this would have to be by macro manipulation in the spec file, I guess. >>> 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. Well, the idea was to get along without --define. The whole stuff is pretty pointless if it requires manual intervention to get the version right. > 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). I am not sure what the patch is supposed to accomplish. If one still has to specify the version manually, one might as well do so in the spec file, I guess. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
