--- On Tue, 2/12/13, Charles Lepple <[email protected]> wrote: > Regid, > > You suggested we remove nut_version.h from the .orig.tar.gz > for NUT: > > <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=613643> > > > The original intent was that nut_version.h would be > generated from "make dist" (or "make distcheck*") when the > official nut-X.Y.Z.tar.gz tarball is created. At that point, > it is safe to assume that there is no longer any local > version control information (originally SVN, now Git) to > determine what to put in nut_version.h. > > How would you recommend that we handle keeping this file > such that we do not trigger a warning in dpkg-source?
I can't tell. I am not familiar with the user interface, nor with the internals, of Debian packaging to say how to do that, or even if it is doable. I tried to read the manual page of dpkg-source. It does seem to have tools to handle this case. But, as I wrote, someone more knowledgeable might be able to interpret it much better. > > We could patch around this (currently, NUT build from a > tarball with Git installed yields a version like > "2.6.5-Unversioned directory"), but I think the easiest way > is to just leave nut_version.h in the tarball. > Pergaps you should patch it in this way, or use more then one file, or something similar? I do get the impression that currently, the version file is meant for a developer and for the distributer. While you also require the user, the one that just build the package from source, mess with it. Perhaps there should be upsnetworktools.org_ver, distributer_ver, developer_ver, Where the developer_ver, if set, overrides the distributer_ver, which, if set, overrides the upsnetworktools.org_ver? _______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
