Re: Doubts in Sigar packaging
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:23:17 +1000
Matthew Palmer <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:44:47PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:00:27 +1000
> > Matthew Palmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > git --describe is, as far as I can tell, useless for the purpose
> > > stated at the beginning of the thread.
> > Did you miss the <number of commits after it> bit? I think that
> > makes it ideal provided each release is tagged with its version
> > number.
> Because tags aren't globally unique. Since you yourself said that
> tags weren't suitable, in and of themselves, when I proposed it, I
> can't imagine how a tag plus a commit count is of any use. The
> addition of a hash doesn't help, for the non-sortable reason I gave.
I think you've got me confused with Adam Borowski. If multiple branches
are involved you'd probably have to incorporate the branch name in the
version string, and then the main problem is a bloated version string...
If upstream aren't using tags that are or can be mangled to be sortable
and representative of some sort of release versioning then, yes, you've
got difficulties, but if they are, that plus number of commits gives you
a sortable and meaningful version string, and the hash makes sure you
can go straight to the correct commit.