[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: git-version-gen and 'make install'
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: git-version-gen and 'make install' |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:13:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-07-21) |
* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:24:53PM CEST:
> According to Bruno Haible on 7/21/2008 5:05 PM:
> >
> > A) Reduce your expectations, and accept that modified programs show the same
> > version number as the unmodified programs. Like it was for the last 20
> > years. When users want to test a modification in a
> > "modify-compile-install-
> > test" cycle, they are not interested in the output of the --version
> > option.
>
> Which is exactly what GNUmakefile currently does - the version string is
> stale during development, and only updated at interesting moments (and
> with recent changes, you can use cfg.mk to define which moments are
> interesting in your development cycle).
Except that GNUmakefile's way of doing it is such an, err, leaky
abstraction. Since its incantation, it needed several iterations,
and I think everyone even agrees that it's far from perfect still
(and probably not bug-free either).
> > B) Change the build process of your package so that a change in the version
> > number results in less recompilations. That means, in particular:
> > *Don't* use VERSION and PACKAGE_VERSION any more.
>
> Yes, that is the direction that I think we should eventually reach, but it
> takes coordination between the autotools, as well as a design that
> everyone is happy with.
Not as far as I see. There are very simple solutions that need no
coordination with autotools at all.
Cheers,
Ralf