"Lars J. Aas" wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 08:29:19AM -0500, Derek R. Price wrote:
> : I also don't see a reason why it would be very useful to maintain a version
> : on a configure script separate from the pacage version. Anyone else?
>
> If you follow development sources through CVS, it can be a good idea, but
> using AC_REVISION() solves that issue.
Too bad it's not easier to include the AC_REVISION string in the version string
only when built from the CVS sources or the like. Say, let 'make dist' remove
it. :(
> : configure (generated by GNU Autoconf AC_ACVERSION for
> : AC_PACKAGE_STRING) AC_PACKAGE_VERSION
>
> AC_PACKAGE_VERSION is part of AC_PACKAGE_STRING, and I think it will look
> strange when you get the same version number twice like
>
> ... (GNU Emax 19.34) 19.34
>
> Using the PACKAGE string that doesn't contain the version will perhaps look
> better.
Um, yeah, that's what I meant. I assumed I knew what you meant before without
looking it up.
Derek
--
Derek Price CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CollabNet ( http://collab.net )
--
Mud is not one of the 4 food groups.
Mud is not one of the 4 food groups.
Mud is not one of the 4 food groups...
- Bart Simpson on chalkboard, _The Simpsons_
