On Tuesday 10 February 2009 15:10:59 Jim Meyering wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Friday 06 February 2009 01:13:13 Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Pádraig Brady wrote: > >> > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 03:28:58 Jim Meyering wrote: > >> >>> Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> >>>> On Friday 23 January 2009 09:35:54 Pádraig Brady wrote: > >> >>>>> What distribution are you using (I'm guessing Fedora 10). > >> >>>>> Distributions that patch coreutils really should > >> >>>>> modify the version string accordingly. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> if coreutils wants distros to do that, it should really facilitate > >> >>>> things. the way gcc does it now with gcc-4.3+ is a pretty good > >> >>>> standard: ./configure ... --with-pkgversion="some vendor/distro > >> >>>> string" ... > >> >>> > >> >>> Good idea. > >> >>> Patches welcome. > >> >> > >> >> do you want the gcc method or a new method ? > >> >> > >> >> gcc does: > >> >> - running `gcc --version` outputs: > >> >> gcc (GCC) 4.3.3 > >> >> - running `configure --with-pkgversion=PKG` changes it to: > >> >> gcc (PKG) 4.3.3 > >> >> > >> >> so the coreutils analog would be: > >> >> - running `ls --version` outputs: > >> >> ls (GNU coreutils) 6.12 > >> >> - running `configure --with-pkgversion=PKG` changes it to: > >> >> ls (PKG) 6.12 > >> >> > >> >> that way we could end up with: > >> >> ls (Gentoo p1.0) 6.12 > >> >> -mike > >> > > >> > Well I'd be a little worried about putting numbers > >> > in there in case scripts parsing output from --version got confused > >> > (like our bootstrap script for example). > >> > > >> > How about: > >> > > >> > ls (Gentoo coreutils) 6.12 > >> > ls (Red Hat coreutils) 6.12 > >> > ... > >> > > >> > Or perhaps we could use the wget example on my fedora distro: > >> > GNU Wget 1.10.2 (Red Hat modified) > >> > >> Mike, if you're preparing a patch, please > >> put the distro information inside the parentheses, > >> and after "GNU coreutils", i.e., do something like this: > >> > >> ls (GNU coreutils, Gentoo p1.0) 6.12 > >> > >> Whether it has distro-specific patches doesn't change > >> the fact that it's part of the "GNU coreutils" package, > >> so it should continue to say that. > > > > i was thinking a common change to the version-etc module to add a > > "packager" field rather than having every package out there allow people > > to tweak PACKAGE_NAME. what do you think of that ? > > Sounds sensible. > The question then becomes whether to change version_etc > (probably not), or to add a new interface that takes > the additional parameter. > > Does anyone prefer to add a parameter to version_etc?
i prefer modifying version_etc as this would go a long way in acknowledging that end users are not the main consumer of software. they get it by way of distro packagers. however, i dont think it needs to modify the function prototype ? if the m4 set up a PACKAGE_PACKAGER define, the version_etc module could use that. if the person running configure doesnt specify the --with-packager=... option, then it wont show up in the output. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
