[Nut-upsdev] revisiting #613643 - Should include/nut_version.h be removed from nut_2.4.3.orig.tar.gz?

Regid Ichira regid23 at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 15 20:14:07 UTC 2013

--- On Tue, 2/12/13, Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com> wrote:

> Regid,
> You suggested we remove nut_version.h from the .orig.tar.gz
> for NUT:
> <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=613643>
> The original intent was that nut_version.h would be
> generated from "make dist" (or "make distcheck*") when the
> official nut-X.Y.Z.tar.gz tarball is created. At that point,
> it is safe to assume that there is no longer any local
> version control information (originally SVN, now Git) to
> determine what to put in nut_version.h.
> How would you recommend that we handle keeping this file
> such that we do not trigger a warning in dpkg-source?

  I can't tell.  I am not familiar with the user interface, nor
with the internals, of Debian packaging to say how to do that, or
even if it is doable.  I tried to read the manual page of
dpkg-source.  It does seem to have tools to handle this case.
But, as I wrote, someone more knowledgeable might be able to
interpret it much better.

> We could patch around this (currently, NUT build from a
> tarball with Git installed yields a version like
> "2.6.5-Unversioned directory"), but I think the easiest way
> is to just leave nut_version.h in the tarball.

  Pergaps you should patch it in this way, or use more then one
file, or something similar?  I do get the impression that
currently, the version file is meant for a developer and for the
distributer.  While you also require the user, the one that just
build the package from source, mess with it.  Perhaps there should
be upsnetworktools.org_ver, distributer_ver, developer_ver, Where
the developer_ver, if set, overrides the distributer_ver, which,
if set, overrides the upsnetworktools.org_ver?

More information about the Nut-upsdev mailing list