kismet and svn builds?
Chris Ricker
kaboom at oobleck.net
Thu May 19 18:40:35 UTC 2005
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 12:09 -0400, Chris Ricker wrote:
>
> > 3. kismet support for ipw2200 cards requires a build from the kismet
> > development svn tree. How does one package a cvs / svn / etc. checkout
> > for FE? Or is the answer just "don't do that" :-)
>
> We're still trying to figure that out.
>
> Right now, I think this is the wording I've got so far. Please point out
> flaws in this.
<snip>
Thanks, that helped
To complicate things, kismet started out with the more-or-less traditional
major #.minor #.tiny # versioning scheme. After it hit 3.1.0, the author
switched to a year-month-release# scheme (which, just to be
extra-confusing, he describes in the documentation as a
month-year-release# scheme ;-). So, releases now look like
2005-01-R1
2005-04-R1
Based on that, I thought the %{version} for the latest stable release
should be 0.2005.04.1 (0 just so I don't need an Epoch if the naming
scheme ever goes back)
So, I'd do something like
kismet-0.2005.04.1-1
for the initial package of the release code, then
kismet-0.2005.04.1-2.1.20050518svn
kismet-0.2005.04.1-2.2.20050519svn
for subsequent builds from the development checkout.
One thing that's not clear: when would I ever change the first field of
%{release} once going to the post-release SVN checkout format? Meaning,
after I've done:
kismet-0.2005.04.1-2.1.20050518svn
kismet-0.2005.04.1-2.2.20050519svn
when would I ever do
kismet-0.2005.04.1-3.whatever
? It kinda seems like that first field in %{release} is superfluous?
later,
chris
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list