On Sun, Mar 25 2018 at 11:22:13 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> Bertrand Garrigues wrote on Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:49:43PM +0200:
>
>> That's right, release candidates should be named 1.22.4.rc1, 1.22.4.rc2
>> etc... before releasing the final 1.22.4. Next rc will be 1.22.4.rc2.
>> I
Hi Bertrand,
Bertrand Garrigues wrote on Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:49:43PM +0200:
> That's right, release candidates should be named 1.22.4.rc1, 1.22.4.rc2
> etc... before releasing the final 1.22.4. Next rc will be 1.22.4.rc2.
> I'm also working on the change of the installation directory name in
Hi Werner,
On Sun, Mar 18 2018 at 02:44:34 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> right now, the string is "1.22.3.rc1.43-e7a3", with "3.rc1", even
>> though this is actually a *4* release candidate.
>
> Yes, this is a mistake. Bertrand, please fix :-)
That's right, release candidates should be named 1.2
>>> I doubt that nowadays, anybody still uses the native build system
>>> to install self-compiled software directly into the operating
>>> system,
>>
>> I do this all the time.
>
> O really? Surprising. Everybody else i talked to about such things
> during the last years said they don't do it
Hi Werner,
Werner LEMBERG wrote on Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 03:44:34AM +0100:
> echo 1.22.4 > .tarball-version <---
That does indeed work, thanks.
My spontaneous reaction went like "any sufficiently complicated
technology is undistinguishable from magic", but reading the hack
gn
> My usual procedure is to git pull, build a distribution tarball in
> the standard way described in INSTALL.REPO, then build an
> installable package from that with the standard OpenBSD packaging
> system, which, in a nutshell
>
> 1. extracts the tarball
> 2. applies distribution patches (mino
Hi Werner and Bertrand,
Werner Lemberg wrote:
> What do you mean with `reliable testing'? I've never encountered
> such issues, so please elaborate on your setup.
My usual procedure is to git pull, build a distribution tarball in the
standard way described in INSTALL.REPO, then build an install
> git-version-gen is a very serious nuisance.
Actually, I like it.
> It efficiently prevents any kind of reliable testing.
What do you mean with `reliable testing'? I've never encountered such
issues, so please elaborate on your setup.
Werner
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, Mar 15 2018 at 08:34:00 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> git-version-gen is a very serious nuisance. It efficiently prevents
> any kind of reliable testing. It creates totally ridiculous version
> strings like "1.22.3.rc1.40-1327" which then get scattered all over
> the place
