Re: ITK debian packages
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I've taken a shot at changing the CableSwig CMakeLists.txt so that (a)
building with internal gcc-xml sources is optional, and (b) if you
choose to use an EXTERNAL gccxml, you have the chance to specify the
path to the gccxml binary. Note that this is my first crack at
CMakeLists so please let me know if it can be improved.
Thanks for your work.
So Brad, what do you suggest for versioning? The Debian practice
would be to label a CVS snapshot from 2006-02-26 as 0.1.0+cvs20060226.
Is that reasonable or do you folks prefer what you suggested for
gccxml, namely replace the patch number with the date, i.e.
0.1.20060226?
The Debian versioning is just a convention that made sense for
a lot of packages. While I do not think that patching the source
is necessary to reflect this marking of a CVS snapshot I would
stick to this naming scheme. But this is more or less a suggestion
that you *might* follow if you think it is reasonable.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: