Charles Lepple
2013-Feb-12 13:42 UTC
[Nut-upsdev] 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
Regid Ichira
2013-Feb-15 20:14 UTC
[Nut-upsdev] revisiting #613643 - Should include/nut_version.h be removed from nut_2.4.3.orig.tar.gz?
--- 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?