Hash: SHA256

Guess I was forgetting to hit "Reply-All" today... resent to list.

Christopher G. Lewis wrote:
> Micah -
>   I haven't tested this yet, but I've been pondering on the impact of having
> a dependency on Hg for the actual build process of Wget.  Seems like an
> awful lot of trouble for a product that in the past has only needed
> Make|Nmake and a C compiler.

No dependency: that's what the "-" at the beginning of the line is for.
If hg is not present, it just says "1.12-devel".

>   Is it possible with Hg to create a file that consists of the TIP Output?
> We could then echo this back through this section of the make file rather
> then using Hg to create it.

I don't think so... at any rate, we don't want the tip, we want the
currently checked-out revision.

Note, FWIW, that Subversion also lacks a means of putting the latest
revision directly into a file, and requires you to use "svnversion" to
write to a file

> What I'm concerned with is someone who downloads the source from a
> zip/tarball.  Requiring them to have Make|Nmake and a C compiler is
> reasonable.  Requiring a source control tool (Hg, svn, etc) is not.

Absolutely. And while I'll miss the information, I'm not going to force
people to grab Hg just for that.

However, most people who will be downloading source tarballs, zip files,
etc, will be downloading from us, and we have some control over the process.

AIUI, I believe I can hook the archive-generation from hg, and have it
add or modify a file to include the tag. I could modify Makefile.am to
use hg when it's available, and fallback to the file if present.

As to official or alpha distribution tarballs, those will have
otherwise-identifying information, and will not include the revision

- --
Micah J. Cowan
Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer...

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply via email to