On Do, 2015-10-22 at 12:20 -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
Document the existence of the EXTRAVERSION field and the information expected to be present in it.
Signed-off-by: Kevin O'Connor kevin@koconnor.net
docs/Build_overview.md | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/Build_overview.md b/docs/Build_overview.md index 26db226..ac38694 100644 --- a/docs/Build_overview.md +++ b/docs/Build_overview.md @@ -52,6 +52,21 @@ CSM_ENABLE'. The SeaBIOS binary will be included as a discrete file within the 'Flash Volume' which is created, and there are tools which will extract it and allow it to be replaced.
+Distribution builds +===================
+If one is building a binary version of SeaBIOS as part of a package +(such as an rpm) or for wide distribution, please provide the +EXTRAVERSION field during the build. For example:
+`make EXTRAVERSION="-${RPM_PACKAGE_RELEASE}"`
That'll work, but 'make EXTRAVERSION="-%{release}"' is the shorter and more common way to say this.
Difference between %{release} and ${RPM_PACKAGE_RELEASE} is that the former is handled by rpm, i.e. the build script snippet handed over to the shell has this already replaced, whereas the later is handled by the shell by reading RPM_PACKAGE_RELEASE from the environment.
buildversion.py can see the RPM_PACKAGE_RELEASE environment variable too, thats why I picked that one in the context possibly doing rpm build autodetection.
Other that that both patches look fine to me.
cheers, Gerd