Uwe Hermann wrote: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 12:00:50AM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> BTW, the $Rev$ output format is ugly beyond words. >> > > Full ack. > > That's why it has to be mangled quite a bit before usage. However, the > final output looks ok IMO: > > $ ./superiotool -v > superiotool r2821 > > > Uwe. >
Not here it doesn't: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/linuxbios/lb_clean/LinuxBIOSv2/util/superiotool$ ./superiotool -v superiotool r2821�z�� [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/linuxbios/lb_clean/LinuxBIOSv2/util/superiotool$ ./superiotool -v superiotool r2821���� [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/linuxbios/lb_clean/LinuxBIOSv2/util/superiotool$ ./superiotool -v superiotool r2821�� [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/linuxbios/lb_clean/LinuxBIOSv2/util/superiotool$ ./superiotool -v superiotool r2821���� [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/linuxbios/lb_clean/LinuxBIOSv2/util/superiotool$ ./superiotool -v superiotool r2821�*�� [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/linuxbios/lb_clean/LinuxBIOSv2/util/superiotool$ ./superiotool -v superiotool r2821� [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/linuxbios/lb_clean/LinuxBIOSv2/util/superiotool$ ./superiotool -v superiotool r2821�:�� I agree with Carl-Daniel, that we should probably switch to a non-svn based versioning scheme. For now, it avoids the headache of "how do we do it". It also means that down the road if we don't touch superiotool for 6 months, the version hasn't been bumped 300 times by LinuxBIOSv2 commits, without ever touching the tool. Which means that if this ever starts making it into packages, maintainers don't have the headache of trying to figure out if there actually is an updated version or not. Just my 2 cents. -Corey -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
