Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Finding a particular version

[West, Nathan]

I believe that old of a revision was before we started using git, so that commit (was in SVN) actually does not exist. It's probably easier to port whatever application to the modern API and then you don't have to personally maintain 2 old pieces of code.

On Friday, January 17, 2014, Nikos Balkanas <address@hidden> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Tom Rondeau <address@hidden> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Nikos Balkanas
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I actually need 2.8. That's my problem. Repository has releases since
> 2006, so it should have 2.8 as well. It is paramount to get that version.
> Recent versions won't work with my other programs. :-(

Sorry, no. Absolutely no support for a version that old.

Tom

OK. How about you tell me how to find the gnuradio version number from the source tree, once I download it (without actually building it)? There must be a way.

> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Tom Rondeau <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Nikos Balkanas
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am trying to get from the repository gnuradio v 2.8. Since I don't
>> > know
>> > dates or revision numbers, I download revisions and check them out.
>> >
>> > I have an either or question. Does anyone know of a stable 2.8 revision
>> > for
>> > me to download? Failing that, i would appreciate it if someone could
>> > tell me
>> > a way to get gnuradio's version # from the source tree (without building
>> > it).
>> >
>> > TIA,
>> > Nikos
>>
>> I think you might be confused. You don't really mean 2.8, do you? I
>> would imagine you're looking for 3.8, which doesn't actually exist
>> yet. We're currently on 3.7.2.1.
>>
>> You can look in git for the version releases by using "git tag" to see
>> a list of tags that correspond to the version. Wen you have a version
>> of GNU Radio, you can look at the root CMakeLists.txt file for the
>> "VERSiON_INFO_MAJOR_VERSION" and other version variables set up here.
>>
>> Tom
>
>