[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: kismet and svn builds?

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.


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


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


for the initial package of the release code, then


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:


when would I ever do


? It kinda seems like that first field in %{release} is superfluous?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]