Nut upsdev - Feb 2013 - revisiting #613643 - Should include/nut_version.h be removed from nut_2.4.3.orig.tar.gz?

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?

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.

Thanks,

-- 
Charles Lepple
clepple at gmail

--- On Tue, 2/12/13, Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com> 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?