Hi Rick:
On 11/14/07, Richard Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that looks good. I had actually debated whether the logic
> should go in the spec file or configure.in. I ended up modifying the
> spec file because I was more familiar with it than with the autoconf
> stuff, but your patch
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 18:48 -0800, Bernard Li wrote:
> Index: configure.in
> ===
> --- configure.in (revision 861)
> +++ configure.in (working copy)
> @@ -64,10 +64,14 @@
> if test "$GANGLIA_SNAPSHOT" != yes;
> then
>
>
Hi Rick:
On 10/12/07, Richard Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See below. I don't know if this is the best way to do it, but I think
> it should work. (I can't be 100% sure since I don't have a system at
> the moment which has the necessary pre-reqs for building 3.1.0.)
>
> The patches were ge
>>> On 10/10/2007 at 4:50 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have a little proposal about the versioning.
>
> Right now trunk is 3.1.0, and when snapshots are created, it appends
> date to it specifying it is a snapshot.
>
> The issue is, if I am to rele
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 15:16 -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
> I am fine with this convention, but the issue is right now, the date
> is appended if snapshot is enabled in the configure.in file. If you
> have patches that would make things work for both the tarball
> generation and the RPM spec file, I w
Hi Jarod:
On 10/11/07, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, epoch's are fugly. Don't use 'em.
>
> The way to apply the Fedora conventions would be more like this:
>
> For a 3.1.0 pre-release snapshot:
>
> Version: 3.1.0, Release: 0.1.200710101608
>
> For a 3.1.0 rc:
>
> Version: 3.1.0,
Bernard Li wrote:
>> My personal preference is to have the "version" part of the rpm name
>> accurately reflect the package I am installing. If I see a package
>> named ganglia-3.0.9-, my expectation is that I am installing
>> some form of ganglia-3.0.9. In this case, ganglia-3.0.9 doesn't really
Hi Rick:
On 10/11/07, Richard Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My personal preference is to have the "version" part of the rpm name
> accurately reflect the package I am installing. If I see a package
> named ganglia-3.0.9-, my expectation is that I am installing
> some form of ganglia-3.0.9.
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 15:50 -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
> The issue is, if I am to release test RPMs, and later wanted to
> upgrade to the release version, this won't work because 3.1.0.X >
> 3.1.0.
>
> I would like to propose that prior to release, the version is always
> smaller than the relea
Have a little proposal about the versioning.
Right now trunk is 3.1.0, and when snapshots are created, it appends
date to it specifying it is a snapshot.
The issue is, if I am to release test RPMs, and later wanted to
upgrade to the release version, this won't work because 3.1.0.X >
3.1.0.
I
10 matches
Mail list logo
