https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #18 from Rostislav Krasny <rostiprodev at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #17)
> Created attachment 15626 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> OK, what do you think of this version ?
>
> It incorporates Rostilav's suggested change, along with extra code to
> generate a date if building from a source tarball rather than repository
> sources
Hi Nick,
Why to generate the VERSION_DATE and the version.h file if building from a
source tarball? Isn't any source tarball created by the src-release.sh script?
If any source tarball created by the src-release.sh it already contains the
generated version.h file with properly generated VERSION_DATE from the last
commit in the Git repo. I think in case of source tarball the configure script
should not try to generate the version.h again because it already exist.
In case there is a reason to generate version.h again my following commend is
about how it's done. This line in your patch assumes the date could always be
found in the very first line of the change log file:
VERSION_DATE=$(head -1 $srcdir/ChangeLog.git | cut -b 1-10 | sed -e s/-//g)
But what if it's not first? What do you think about changing that code into the
following one?
VERSION_DATE=$(grep -m 1 -Po '^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}(?=\s+)' $srcdir/ChangeLog.git
| sed s/-//g)
I also don't see the ChangeLog.git file anywhere in the Git repo of binutils.
Did you mean ChangeLog file?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
