Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Upcoming 11.83 release

[David Kastrup]

Reiner Steib <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, May 31 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Reiner Steib <address@hidden> writes:
>>> [1] Before upgrading to the final 11.83 version, you need to "rpm -e"
>>>     the pre-11.83 RPM.  "rpm -U" wont work (unless we bump the
>>>     "Release" version in the spec file from 0 to 1 for the final RPM).
>>
>> If anybody has a clue about RPM macros and such: we'd want 11.83-1
>> for a version with a non-empty $Name: $ tag after keyword
>> expansion,
>
> I don't understand your intend.  Did you really mean "Name:" and not
> "Release:" or something?

(info "(cvs) Keyword List")

    `$Name$'
         Tag name used to check out this file.  The keyword is expanded
         only if one checks out with an explicit tag name.  For example,
         when running the command `cvs co -r first', the keyword expands to
         `Name: first'.

Should be something like $Name: release_11_83$ when one checks out a
copy with cvs co -r release_11_83

>> and likely something like 0-20060529 otherwise.
>
> Using a scheme like "0-20060529" (with "-") doesn't work (an
> underscore is okay):

Well, I have no clue about the details: I just thought I had seen a
scheme like that for snapshot RPMs before.

> | error: line 16: Illegal char '-' in release: Release:   0-20060531.suse
>
> The patch below seems[1] to allow the inclusion of the date from the
> command line (or from the Makefile).

This wouldn't work for

    rpmbuild -ta auctex-11.83.tgz

right?  I was trying to come up with a scheme that would "do the right
thing(TM)" if a user built straight from release or snapshot tarball.

It is not really very important, since we have not actually had a
flurry of mislabeled RPM files distributed by other people.  It just
seemed like a good idea in some respect.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum