Re: [PATCH] Cogito chicken-and-egg problem
- From
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
- Date
- Apr 26, 2005, 17:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.21.0504261322490.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <1114534942.26856.10.camel@dv>
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> > (Also, .git/HEAD is a dependancy, since you want to redo the version > > script if you commit; but if you don't have it, that's okay and just means > > you're building from a tarball, which is described completely by VERSION) > > It should be a conditional dependency, i.e. it should be a dependency > if .git exists.
True.
> It seems to me that the whole idea of including SHA1 in cg-version is > broken. SHA1 is not human readable. But if the maintainers insist on > having SHA1 in cg-version, I want it to be done without causing build > warnings for new users.
The idea is that it should appear if you're building a version that has changes in its .git; in this case, VERSION is insufficient to tell you which revision you have installed. If I've got cogito-0.8 + three untagged commits from the remote repository + two local patches, I'd like to be able to tell if the installed version is cogito-0.8 + two of the remote patches. Possibly, it should also suppress the SHA1 if you've got a tagged head, but identifying this situation is tricky, currently. Eventually, it should be able to use a cg program to update VERSION from .git/HEAD and include SHA1 for cases which aren't directly tagged.
> Here's an alternative patch.
I like your version.
-Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*