Hi Tom, My apologies for the issues the patch to AC_INIT caused with TOCALL and thank you for the explanation of versioning semantics. It was a bad assumption on my part, carried over from $dayjob, when I didn't see a release tag for 2.1.5 in the repo. 100% my mistake.
Also, thank you to Iain for the identifying and addressing the bug in Debian source package, which will now report 2.1.5 in the Help->About dialog. Regards, tony On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:45:51AM -0700, Tom Russo wrote: > This is a forwarded version of an email sent to the Xastir mailing list. > I am forwarding to you because you followed up to a different message on that > list. > > To answer your direct question, "Since we are > building from a snapshot - i.e., a version somewhere between 2.1.4 and > 2.1.5, is there a preference for which we use for configure?" > > This is mistaken. You are in fact using 2.1.5, which means > "development version between 2.1.4. and whatever our next release will be > called." Since this version number is used to construct the TOCALL, the > version number in AC_INIT should just be left at 2.1.5. > > 2.1.5 will never be "released", and the presence of APX215 in the TOCALL > is supposed to say "this user is using a bleeding-edge version pulled > from git". Our next release will get a version number bump. > > The Xastir build system tries to construct a useful Version string to display > in the Help->About and also to print when Xastir is invoked with "-V", but > this trick only works if the code is being built from a git clone (it sticks > the current SHA-1 into the version displayed in these places, but does NOT > screw up the TOCALL). That won't work if you're building the Debian package > out of a tarball (the trick involves looking for a .git directory, and if > found, invoking a git log command to get the current SHA-1). > > ----- Forwarded message from Tom Russo <ru...@bogodyn.org> ----- > > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 10:26:41 -0700 > From: Tom Russo <ru...@bogodyn.org> > To: Xastir - APRS client software discussion <xas...@xastir.org> > Subject: Re: [Xastir] Fwd: Bug#952116: xastir: Impossible to transmit due to > malformed TOCALL > > Xastir's versions are goofy. The history of this is ancient, and there has > been no reason to ungoof it. > > Even numbers are releases, odd numbers are working development versions, > and are generally not updated for every commit --- Xastir 2.1.5 just means > "development branch after stable 2.1.4". > > The TOCALL for the current development version of Xastir should be APX215, > and there should be no need for finer granularity to show which commit on > every transmit. The ambiguity of "which commit of the dev branch am I using?" > is resolved using the Help->About box. This can only matter to the user > him/her > self, and need not be transmitted in every packet. A TOCALL of APX215 should > be enough for all interested parties on the receive end. > > If there is a need for a stable release so that distros can have a stable > version, we should push one out. There is an open project on github for our > next release with a number of required fixes before we do it. There was a > flurry of activity on some of those issues a while back, but between people > being injured, having other projects, and what not, nothing's been done for > quite a while. > > If there is a real need for a stable release, we could probably use a little > help. The open issues that we expected to have fixed for the next release > (nominally dubbed Xastir 2.2.0) can be seen at: > > https://github.com/Xastir/Xastir/projects/2 > > Some might need punting. > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 08:56:54AM -0800, we recorded a bogon-computron > collision of the <xas...@trinnet.net> flavor, containing: > > > > Hello Dave, > > > > The scenario here seems to be if you're running an intermediate release > > Xastir and not an official tagged release. > > > > Dave, yes, I see you on APRS-IS : https://aprs.fi/info/a/KB3EFS and it shows > > you're running v2.15 (APX215) per the "Last Path" line: > > > > KB3EFS>*APX215* via TCPIP*,qAC,T2ONTARIO > > > > > > The question here is if you're running a version of Xastir that's between > > v2.15 and v2.16, what should Xastir report as it's version to APRS-IS? It's > > not clear if it's illegal but maybe this would be legal: > > > > APX21G > > > > --David > > KI6ZHD > > > > > > > > > > On 02/23/2020 08:43 AM, David A Aitcheson wrote: > > > I did & was checking validity before making noise... > > > > > > Given that I only am able to be on APRS via an Internet connection > > > (read: no radio use allowed)... > > > > > > Given that I only build from source (read: I don't use a package from a > > > repository)... > > > > > > I think that it is not effecting me... > > > > > > David KI6ZHD - can you see me ( "KB3EFS" ) on the map in NY State? > > > > > > 73 > > > Dave > > > KB3EFS > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xastir mailing list > > xas...@lists.xastir.org > > http://xastir.org/mailman/listinfo/xastir > > -- > Tom Russo KM5VY > Tijeras, NM > > echo "prpv_a'rfg_cnf_har_cvcr" | sed -e 's/_/ /g' | tr [a-m][n-z] [n-z][a-m] > > _______________________________________________ > Xastir mailing list > xas...@lists.xastir.org > http://xastir.org/mailman/listinfo/xastir > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > -- > Tom Russo KM5VY > Tijeras, NM > > echo "prpv_a'rfg_cnf_har_cvcr" | sed -e 's/_/ /g' | tr [a-m][n-z] [n-z][a-m]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
