Re: libtool, how should the version be parsed?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to René Berber on 5/15/2009 10:16 PM: $ libtoolize --version | sed 's/^[^0-9]*\([0-9].[0-9.]*\).*/\1/' 1.3081 2003 2009 ... Weird, its looking for the first number, must be as confused as I am, So that should be reported as a bug in the package parsing the version numbers. I can understand if something is version X and part of say coreutils version Y, but libtool X being part of GNU libtool Y? libtool 1.3081 comes from ChangeLog entry 3081; the libtool authors wanted to have a monotonically increasing number in every development build (not present in formal release builds) to make it easier to track exactly _which_ development build you are using. The package number, 2.2.7a, is only bumped for formal releases, with odd letters (aceg...) designating development alpha snapshots, even letters (bdfh...) designating betas, and the absence of a letter being a stable release. True, cygwin is a bit unusual for using a development snapshot, rather than a formal release, of libtool, but that's because there hasn't yet been a formal release containing the latest round of patches necessary for use on cygwin. - -- Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well! Eric Blake e...@byu.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoOubUACgkQ84KuGfSFAYBZ4wCgjOBp8WNs1W09HY6QR9RhHyNn KyIAn0mlzwuk3Db8XxZl39ESYbehA4G7 =UPce -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
libtool, how should the version be parsed?
Hi, I was trying to build some package and it complained that libtool 1.4 was needed... looking at the version: $ libtool --version libtool (GNU libtool 1.3081 2009-02-17) 2.2.7a Is it 1.3081 or 2.2.7a? I see at gnu.org that the latest stable is 2.2.6a, so I suppose the one in Cygwin (1.7) is the bleeding edge. Any trick/idea on how to use it with packages that expect something sane as version. -- René Berber -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: libtool, how should the version be parsed?
René Berber wrote:
Hi,
I was trying to build some package and it complained that libtool 1.4
was needed... looking at the version:
$ libtool --version
libtool (GNU libtool 1.3081 2009-02-17) 2.2.7a
Is it 1.3081 or 2.2.7a?
It is 2.2.7a. You can see that from the announcement here:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2009-04/msg3.html
[1.7] Updated: {libtool/libltdl7}-2.2.7a-12
^^
Also:
$ cygcheck -cd libtool
Package Version
libtool 2.2.7a-12
I see at gnu.org that the latest stable is 2.2.6a, so I suppose the one
in Cygwin (1.7) is the bleeding edge. Any trick/idea on how to use it
with packages that expect something sane as version.
This format
libtool (GNU libtool 1.3081 2009-02-17) 2.2.7a
is the GNU standard, as documented here:
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#g_t_002d_002dversion
The first line is meant to be easy for a program to parse; the version
number proper starts after the last space.
Also
If the program is a subsidiary part of a larger package, mention the
package name in parentheses, like this:
emacsserver (GNU Emacs) 19.30
If the package has a version number which is different from this
program's version number, you can mention the package version number
just before the close-parenthesis.
So, if you had build stock libtool-2.2.6(a), and ran --version on it,
you would have seen:
libtool (GNU libtool 1. 2008-mm-dd) 2.2.6a
So, next time, kindly refrain from accusing my package of insanity. But
while we're on the subject...libtool-1.4 dates from 27-Nov-2003, more
than 5.5 years ago...
--
Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: libtool, how should the version be parsed?
Charles Wilson wrote: [snip] So, next time, kindly refrain from accusing my package of insanity. But while we're on the subject...libtool-1.4 dates from 27-Nov-2003, more than 5.5 years ago... Thanks for all the info. I learned something new. As for the old version, that's just a requirement, libtool 1.4 or newer... but since the autoconf script complains it must have taken the 1.3.x as version... yes, it does: $ libtoolize --version | sed 's/^[^0-9]*\([0-9].[0-9.]*\).*/\1/' 1.3081 2003 2009 ... Weird, its looking for the first number, must be as confused as I am, I can understand if something is version X and part of say coreutils version Y, but libtool X being part of GNU libtool Y? -- René Berber -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
