[PATCH] example/VFS ....confiure.in...
abartlet at samba.org
Tue Jun 24 10:04:48 GMT 2003
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 19:48, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:35:12AM +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> > >> Jerry, can you make sure that the VERSION string of samba matches this
> > >> parsing scheme...
> > >>
> > >> in the SAMBA_3_0 and SAMBA_2_2 branches we should have "cvs" as version
> > >> suffix
> > >> (e.g. "3.0.0beta2cvs" or "3.0.0pre3cvs" or "3.0.0rc2")
> > >>
> > >> and the SAMBA_3_0_RELEASE and SAMBA_2_2_RELEASE branches should have the
> > >> official versions.
> > >> ("3.0.0beta2" or "3.0.0rc1" or "3.0.0")
> > >I would better not make any attempt to count on particular string in
> > >VERSION as we encourage vendors to change this string to their own if they
> > >apply specific patches (regular behaviour). That means, if your logic is
> > >based on content of VERSION string, it will likely fail.
> > but it should still be something like "3.0.0beta1-SuSE" ...
> Not exactly. It might be, for example, "3.0/ALT" as we do in our ALT Linux
> packages because we have continuous Samba 3.0 builds without separation on
> beta/alpha/cvs snapshot for more than 1.5 year now. Actual source code
> versioning is mentioned in the package itself.
> > and parsing this string is the best thing we can do for dealing with samba
> > 2.2.* and 3.0aplha* and 3.0.0beta1
> Why you need to parse that at all?
I think that a few #defines in version.h is the right thing to to here.
Andrew Bartlett abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20030624/ae09eea2/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical