On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:28:10 -0500 "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The svn 'r' system is specifically designed to cope with this
> > inadequacy of CVS - it is, IMHO, crazy to dump it for imprecise and
> > inaccurate 'date' strings. Using a full UTC timestamp is even worse -
> > far too messy.
> >
> > Looking up an 'r' number is as trivial as putting "svn r12314 project"
> > into google. I really don't see what could possibly be easier.
> >
> Right. However, I think we are rapidly approaching overkill in this
> discussion. How about this:
>
> * the version string includes the date
I still see no reason for any package built from svn to include the
date in any version string. It just makes it look like the DD doesn't
understand how SVN differs from CVS.
> * the changelog mentions the exact rev
Wrong way around, IMHO. The ChangeLog normally includes dates, as does
debian/changelog ('changelog' is ambiguous in this context) - it may
include svn 'r' strings too but, primarily, ChangeLog uses dates and
debian/changelog does not support anything but dates as timestamps.
Take a look at gnucash - it outputs the svn 'r' number in the
splashscreen and in the Help:About. A snapshot of gnucash would
definitely need to use 2.0.2~r14542 - there's no place for a date when
the package itself declares itself by means of svn 'r' numbers.
It is trivial to retrieve the svn number from the checked out working
copy during the build and therefore make a completely automated
snapshot that incorporates the 'r12356' into any portion of the build.
--
Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpaUWUss96V7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
