,----[ Albert Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
| When I run autogen.sh on RHEL4 I get:
| doc/Makefile.am: `version.texi', included in `freeipmi-faq.texi',
| also included in `freeipmi.texi'
| I'll leave this for you guys on how you want to deal with this,
| since I'm not quite sure what you were trying to do.  I just removed
| the "version.texi" includes in both of the problem files to
| temporarily get by the problem for testing.
Thanks for point it out. That was a bug. Two texi files cannot include
same version.texi file. Now it is version-doc.texi and
version-faq.texi. Also created permissions.texi dependency for
freeipmi-faq.texi. There was a problem in automake-1.6 under Debian
SID. I made minimum required version for automake as 1.8.

,----[ Albert Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
| 2) Could future beta versions not have a dash ('-') in them.  It
| messes up rpm version numbering (i.e. rpm inserts the '-' and gets
| confused with there is already a '-' in it).  So perhaps in the
| future use versions "0.2.0beta0" instead of "0.2.0-beta0".  This
| would only have to be changed in the configure.ac file.  We can
| still tag in CVS however we want.
| Just for everyone's information, the RPM spec file is now fixed up
| for release with all the appropriate new files and such.  'bmc-info'
| has been moved from the 'fish' package into the 'utils' package
| since it is its own individual tool now.  'ipmi-locate' and
| 'ipmi-raw' are in the utils package too.
Version numbers like 0.2.0beta0 also break GNU standards convention. I
named them with the assumption that we never package them for proper
releases. Obviously thats a mistake. It is good to create binary deb
or rpm packages even for beta releases, so that more people can test

I up'd the next version number to 0.2.beta1

Version# Nomenclature:

Anand Babu 
GPG Key ID: 0x62E15A31
Blog [http://ab.freeshell.org]              
The GNU Operating System [http://www.gnu.org]  

Freeipmi-devel mailing list

Reply via email to