On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 08:04:30AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 11:12:00AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I'd like to make an official DTC Version 1.0.0 release soon!
> >
> > It would certainly be great to have a release, since dtc is becoming
> > necessary for more and more kernel builds.
> >
> > Only thing I'm not really happy with in the current release is the
> > versioning stuff. For starters, it always reports my builds as
> > -dirty, even when they're not.
>
> I think it won't do that once there is a tag available.
Your 1.0.0-rc1 tag is there, still showing as dirty.
> > It also seems a bit hideously
> > complicated for what it does. I'd prefer to see something simpler
> > using git-describe to derive the version strings directly from the git
> > tags themselves.
>
> That is essentially what is there now. We just need a tag!
Um... no. The base version comes from the numbers specified in the
Makefile, not from the git tag.
> > Obviously we need some sort of cacheing mechanism to
> > make the versioning work for tarball releases without the git history,
> > but I think we can handle that with a suitable "make dist" target.
>
> Sure.
>
> > I'll see if I can make a patch or two in the next few days.
>
> I would like to keep the current version mechanism as it
> is really quite similar to what is in the Kernel now.
First, I don't think it really is - except in superficial aspect of
how the version number is partitioned - the kernel has no auto version
generating thing of this type. Second, I don't see that being similar
to the kernel's approach has any particular usefulness here, anyway.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
