Hi Quentin, On 8/23/22 17:18, Quentin Monnet wrote:
The versioning should always be correct. git-describe(1) should be preferred, or in absence of that, a generic (unreleased) string should be used. Describing any commit after v5.18 and before v5.19-rc1 to be '5.18.0' is plain wrong/misleading. The Makefile should probably autogenerate that info from git-describe(1). See how the Linux man-pages do it (in the links above you can see it) for example.It's not really about how to do it, more that I don't want to have a hard dependency on git for the script. I want it to run just as well when there's no Git repo around. But I can try to run "git describe" and fall back on the Makefile (or on an empty version) if the command fails.
Yeah, I didn't mean it's a bug in the script, but seems to me like a bug in the kernel Makefile. If git fails because it's not present, there could be a fallback like "unknown-version". In the man-pages, when I prepare the tarball, with `make dist`, I hardcode the version in the pages. Maybe the kernel Makefile should have unreleased as the version in the git repo, and when a tarball is generated the Makefile should replace that unreleased version by the appropriate git version. Since git will not be found in the tarballs, that version will be used in that case. But when running from git, git-describe(1) should be preferred.
OK I'll prepare a new version, thanks for your help.
It's a pleasure! Cheers, Alex
Quentin
-- Alejandro Colomar <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
