https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #27
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #26 from Andreas Schwab ---
That does not work with snapshots created with git archive.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #25 from Rostislav Krasny ---
Hi Nick,
I still think this patch could be made simpler. Please consider and comment my
message at 2024-08-02.
In short, any kind of tarball (release, snapshot, nightly, etc.) should be made
with the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #23 from Rostislav Krasny ---
Hi,
Is there any update regarding this ticket?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #22 from Rostislav Krasny ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #21)
> > Ok. Then what is the reason of generating VERSION_DATE from ChangeLog.git or
> > from the current date?
>
> These methods are meant to handle the case w
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #21 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Rostislav Krasny from comment #20)
Hi Rostislav
(Sorry for the delay in replying - I am a bit overwhelmed at the moment).
> Ok. Then what is the reason of generating VERSION_DATE from Chan
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #20 from Rostislav Krasny ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #19)
> > If any source tarball created by the src-release.sh it already contains
> > the generated version.h file with properly generated VERSION_DATE from
> >
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #15626|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #18 from Rostislav Krasny ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #17)
> Created attachment 15626 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> OK, what do you think of this version ?
>
> It incorporates Rostilav's suggeste
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #15596|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #16 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Rostislav Krasny from comment #13)
> The last question is: will the bfd/configure script be ran by the
> src-release.sh script only or also by a user who want to build from an
> already creat
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #15 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Rostislav Krasny from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> > That won't work with a snapshot.
>
> Is it the same to what I tried to fix in my previous message?
Yes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #14 from Rostislav Krasny ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> That won't work with a snapshot.
Is it the same to what I tried to fix in my previous message?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #13 from Rostislav Krasny ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #11)
> Created attachment 15616 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> Sorry for dropping this.
>
> I have uploaded a revised version of your patch which:
>
> 1. Mov
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schwab ---
That won't work with a snapshot.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #11 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 15616
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15616&action=edit
Proposed patch
Sorry for dropping this.
I have uploaded a revised version of your patch which:
1. Mov
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #10 from Rostislav Krasny ---
The general idea of my patch is adding the AC_CONFIG_COMMANDS_PRE block into
the configure.ac file that then adds the appropriate shell code into the
generated configure script. That shell code should
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #9 from Rostislav Krasny ---
> Well to be precise, it is the bfd/configure.ac file that ought to contain
> the code to generate the version.h file. (Since the top level configure.ac
> file is shared with the gcc project, and that
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #8 from Rostislav Krasny ---
Created attachment 15596
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15596&action=edit
patch
Please try this patch. It has changes in the configure.ac file only. The
generated configure scr
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #3)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> > Nick, what do you think? Is it worth discussing it on the ML(s)?
>
> Yes, most definitely.
>
Thanks! Posted
https://i
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Rostislav Krasny from comment #4)
> The /configure script is generated from the /configure.ac file, right?
Right.
> Then
> the fix should be done in the /configure.ac and not directly in th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #5 from Rostislav Krasny ---
What exact command is used to generate the /configure script from the
/configure.ac file?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #4 from Rostislav Krasny ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #3)
>
> I do like the idea of the configure file generating the bfd/version.h file
> automatically however, so if someone wants to write a potential patch that
> w
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> Nick, what do you think? Is it worth discussing it on the ML(s)?
Yes, most definitely.
> I agree with the criticism here - it's a pain to scroll through `git log`
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--
You are receivi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
Rostislav Krasny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rostiprodev at gmail dot com
--
Y
29 matches
Mail list logo
