On Friday 06 February 2009 01:13:13 Jim Meyering wrote: > Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 03:28:58 Jim Meyering wrote: > >>> Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> On Friday 23 January 2009 09:35:54 Pádraig Brady wrote: > >>>>> What distribution are you using (I'm guessing Fedora 10). > >>>>> Distributions that patch coreutils really should > >>>>> modify the version string accordingly. > >>>> > >>>> if coreutils wants distros to do that, it should really facilitate > >>>> things. the way gcc does it now with gcc-4.3+ is a pretty good > >>>> standard: ./configure ... --with-pkgversion="some vendor/distro > >>>> string" ... > >>> > >>> Good idea. > >>> Patches welcome. > >> > >> do you want the gcc method or a new method ? > >> > >> gcc does: > >> - running `gcc --version` outputs: > >> gcc (GCC) 4.3.3 > >> - running `configure --with-pkgversion=PKG` changes it to: > >> gcc (PKG) 4.3.3 > >> > >> so the coreutils analog would be: > >> - running `ls --version` outputs: > >> ls (GNU coreutils) 6.12 > >> - running `configure --with-pkgversion=PKG` changes it to: > >> ls (PKG) 6.12 > >> > >> that way we could end up with: > >> ls (Gentoo p1.0) 6.12 > >> -mike > > > > Well I'd be a little worried about putting numbers > > in there in case scripts parsing output from --version got confused > > (like our bootstrap script for example). > > > > How about: > > > > ls (Gentoo coreutils) 6.12 > > ls (Red Hat coreutils) 6.12 > > ... > > > > Or perhaps we could use the wget example on my fedora distro: > > GNU Wget 1.10.2 (Red Hat modified) > > Mike, if you're preparing a patch, please > put the distro information inside the parentheses, > and after "GNU coreutils", i.e., do something like this: > > ls (GNU coreutils, Gentoo p1.0) 6.12 > > Whether it has distro-specific patches doesn't change > the fact that it's part of the "GNU coreutils" package, > so it should continue to say that.
i was thinking a common change to the version-etc module to add a "packager" field rather than having every package out there allow people to tweak PACKAGE_NAME. what do you think of that ? -mike _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
