On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 05:31:26PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote: > > Dne 21.9.2011 13:32, Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > > > On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 08:40 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: > > >> I don't quite understand. Could you please elaborate what's wrong with > > >> the original approach you suggested? That means one configure argument > > >> allowing to specify the version with a default version string if no > > >> such argument is provided. > > > > > > Well, for one thing what I asked for in the first place was > > > impossible :-/ > > > > > > We can't have multi-line version strings in a configure option; autoconf > > > can't handle it. (All that happens is that the config.h is broken) > > > > Actually, it can handle it. Although not directly (you have to put \n on > > the end of line): > > > > $ ./configure --with-distro-version="-3.fc15\n\ > > > > > Built: 2011-09-07" --enable-silent-rules > > > > $ ./sssd --version > > 1.7.0-3.fc15 > > Built: 2011-09-07 > > I can confirm this works as described by Pavel. > > > > So I was trying to think of an alternative that would serve our needs > > > better. Though admittedly, at this point I'm starting to wonder at the > > > usefulness of this feature at all. > > > > > > So my new thought was that we should default to displaying a version > > > that includes build-time information. Then if we wanted to display just > > > an official version (or a distro-specific build) we could do so by using > > > a --release argument.
I still prefer --version over --release. It's the standard switch everyone uses. > > > > > > This way at least, we would be able to identify work-in-progress builds > > > easily as compared to official release builds. > > > > I don't know if that will do any good. The only thing it will do is make it > possible to distinguish between work-in-progress build and official release. > This can be achieved by current patch as well, you can add a value to > PRERELEASE_VERSION when releasing new tarball (of course, the semantic of the > PRERELEASE_VERSION would be a bit different at that point). Due to this, I'd > like to consider this patch ACKed. > > Any other opinions? > I thought the real value was identifying distribution patchlevels easily? _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
