Hello Brian, On 07/28/18 03:29, Brian Callahan wrote: [...]
I think I forgot to mention this in my first email, but this needs NO_TEST=Yes too.Sorry for that; it was in my local Makefile, but I forgot to add it to the tarball; fixed.
When I run abc -h, it identifies itself as "ABC 1.01" -- should that be the proper name of the PKGNAME? Maybe something like abc-1.01pl20180722 or abc-1.01.20180722? Presuming that upstream will eventually crank the version number higher than 1.01?This is something I thought about... actually, from the code's history log, last time they bumped that revision number was in 2005, so I think it is no more used; on the other hand, it's true that the variables are still there and the version number appears in the program identification (both in the help message and when launching the executable).
I let you decide. In attachment a new tarball with: DISTNAME = 1.01.20180722but please let me know if I should use a more specific combination of DISTNAME, PKGNAME, VERSION, RELEASE, ...
On top of that, I submitted the patch upstream [1] and reported the compiler's warnings [2].
[1] https://github.com/berkeley-abc/abc/issues/17 [2] https://github.com/berkeley-abc/abc/issues/18 -- Alessandro DE LAURENZIS [mailto:jus...@atlantide.t28.net] Web: http://www.atlantide.t28.net LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/delaurenzis
abc.tar.gz
Description: application/gzip
