Am Dienstag, 13. Februar 2007 18:33 schrieb Thorsten Glaser: > Ralph Passgang dixit: > >in this case the complete version is "1.3.8-1", > >so you mean the "-1" part? > > Yep, the package patchlevel or "dash version". > > >in fact thats an important point. as far as my packaging expierence goes, > > this is not needed as long as a package doesn't get really > > shipped/released. > > If the user must recompile the package, increase it. > > >on each minor upgrade the version number needs to be increased, which > > might look strange, too. I don't really want a 1.3.8-1034 version for > > example :). > > If you change something so that the .ipk contains something different, > increase it. Otherwise, it will not be automatically recompiled by a > top-level make. I had that with an important busybox bug fix (the logread > -C16 one) - it was fixed like 10 revisions before, but my busybox pak- > kage did not get recompiled because eJunky didn't bump the patchlevel. > > If you upgrade from 1.3.8-123 to 1.3.9, it's 1.3.9-1 of course. We don't > need the SuSE-like version-global build number, but it _is_ needed, period.
that's obvious. :) does the same apply for trunk or is increasing the package version number not as important as in the branch tree? --Ralph > //mirabile _______________________________________________ freewrt-developers mailing list [email protected] https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers
