[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Upcoming 11.83 release

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Upcoming 11.83 release
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:58:20 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Reiner Steib <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, May 31 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Reiner Steib <address@hidden> writes:
> [...]
>> Should be something like $Name: release_11_83$ when one checks out a
>> copy with cvs co -r release_11_83
> Ah, you had in mind to add "$Name: ...$" in the spec file and
> construct the "Release:" from this, right?

Right.  And this would have to be by macro manipulation in the spec
file, I guess.

>>> The patch below seems[1] to allow the inclusion of the date from the
>>> command line (or from the Makefile).
> [...]
>>> $ rpmbuild -ba --define "micro_version _20060531" auctex.spec
>>> $ rpmbuild -ba auctex.spec
> [...]
>> This wouldn't work for
>>     rpmbuild -ta auctex-11.83.tgz
>> right?  I was trying to come up with a scheme that would "do the right
>> thing(TM)" if a user built straight from release or snapshot tarball.
> I know that "rpmbuild --rebuild --define ... *.src.rpm" works so I
> expect it to work for rpmbuild -ta *.tgz as well.

Well, the idea was to get along without --define.  The whole stuff is
pretty pointless if it requires manual intervention to get the version

> But unless I commit my patch I can't tell for sure.  Should I?  (I'd
> rename "micro_version" to "rpm_release" or something similar).

I am not sure what the patch is supposed to accomplish.  If one still
has to specify the version manually, one might as well do so in the
spec file, I guess.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]