Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Friday 06 February 2009 01:13:13 Jim Meyering wrote: >> Pádraig Brady <p...@draigbrady.com> wrote: >> > Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 03:28:58 Jim Meyering wrote: >> >>> Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> 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 ?
Sounds sensible. The question then becomes whether to change version_etc (probably not), or to add a new interface that takes the additional parameter. Does anyone prefer to add a parameter to version_etc?
