Hey, On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:59:32AM +0300, Yedidyah Bar David wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:50:22AM +0300, Yedidyah Bar David wrote: > >> > same content as what would be generated by git archive, just working also > >> > without the .git. > >> > >> Not sure it should be part of 'make dist', but I think it will help if we > >> also have somewhere the git hash inside the tarball/build/iso image/installed > >> apps. Not sure what's the best place to put this into. To do that we do need > >> .git . > > > > There exists some magic to do this kind of things without needing the > > .git directory. This is used by spice-gtk for example, make dist on an > > untagged git commit will generate a tarball whose name contains the git > > hash, make dist on a tagged git commit will generate a tarball with just > > the version number. > > spice-gtk uses git-version-gen, apparently copied from an older version of > gnulib [1]. Do we want to copy it from there? Their master branch version? > It went through some changes there since [1]. > > There are some non-trivial (to me) things related to copying such things > around, not sure how much of it is really relevant in such a simple case. > See e.g. [2], [3] and [4], which means this is currently in a middle of a > change. I was not necessarily suggesting using git-version-gen as is, I was objecting to « To do that [append the git hash to the tarball], we do need .git ». Personally, I'd be fine with using git-archive to generate the tarball, and having a nice error message when trying it from an unpacked tarball. > > Also, do we want a configure script (and autotools)? Or is Makefile enough? autotools seems quite heavyweight for a one file project. Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel