Am Sonntag 02 August 2009 schrieb Bruno Postle: > On Sat 01-Aug-2009 at 18:21 -0400, Yuval Levy wrote: > >> In this case, 2.0 is major+minor number and 30801 is the svn-revision. > > > >I think Bruno wanted to keep the patch version. Would a four digit > >version number work? major.minor.patch.svn? > > > >hugin-2009.1.0.4138-Linux.deb > > Putting the SVN number in the CMakeLists.txt file is a mess, you > change it, commit it and the SVN number changes again.
No, you can 'ask' the svn about the version number. Like this: FIND_PROGRAM(_svnversion svnversion) message(STATUS "svnversion = ${_svnversion}") if(NOT ${_svnversion} MATCHES "-NOTFOUND") EXECUTE_PROCESS(COMMAND ${_svnversion} WORKING_DIRECTORY "${TOP_SRC_DIR}" OUTPUT_VARIABLE CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_RELEASE OUTPUT_STRIP_TRAILING_WHITESPACE) if(CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_RELEASE MATCHES "^\([0-9]+\)") set(CPACK_PACKAGE_VERSION_PATCH ${CMAKE_MATCH_1}) endif() endif() include(CPack) > Automated packages such as those created by checkinstall or cpack > don't have a fine-grained version. Packaging for distributions > always involves incrementing a 'release; number, putting the svn > number in the name is superfluous. Hmmm, I am not creating a release :) > >> 1.) I create them to install at /usr/local, which is not the "standard" > >> place. > > > >oh, I forgot about those "standards". I love the /usr/local way, like in > >FreeBSD. > > Generally /usr should only contain stuff tracked by the package > manager and /usr/local should only contain stuff manually installed. > This way you can always `rm -rf /usr/local` if it all goes wrong - > Manually deleting or chnaging files from a deb/rpm package is really > going to break stuff. Kornel -- Kornel Benko kornel.be...@berlin.de
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.