On Mon, 25.03.13 11:14, Douglas, William (william.doug...@intel.com) wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Lennart Poettering > <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 20.03.13 14:54, William Douglas (william.doug...@intel.com) wrote: > > > >> BUILD_ID is a generic field that can uniquely identify all a > >> distributions default packages in a release or image build > >> when VERSION is used as broader identifier. > > > > Hmm, why wouldn't VERSION_ID= be enough for this purpose? We already > > have VERSION= as "pretty" version string, and VERSION_ID= as low-level > > computer-readable version, why do we need another? > > > > VERSION_ID can be seperate from BUILD_ID in that I could have two > different versions with the same BUILD_ID (for example VERSION_ID 1.3 > and 2.0 with BUILD_ID being the date + number of build 2013-03-23.5). > > Appending a BUILD_ID field could be done in my case (I can just use an > underscore as a token to seperate but I don't think that it is > something that will be simple to tokenize in the general case) I just > thought it may be useful enough to have it be its own field. OK. Makes sense I guess. Can you send an updated patch, with a more comprehensive explanation of the field, plz? Will merge it then. Might make sense to include a terse explanation pointing out why this is separate from VERSION_ID. > > Also, the patch has line breaks in it, can't be merged that way... > > > > Hrm there isn't any odd characters that I can see from the mailing > list though I seem to have messed it up copying into my mail client as > git tells me it is malformed, sorry I don't send patches enough X(. You could just attach the patch if you need to. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
