Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.org --- scripts/buildversion.py | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/buildversion.py b/scripts/buildversion.py index 8875497..fc2decd 100755 --- a/scripts/buildversion.py +++ b/scripts/buildversion.py @@ -113,7 +113,9 @@ def main():
cleanbuild, toolstr = tool_versions(options.tools)
- ver = git_version() + ver = os.getenv('SEABIOS_VERSION') + if not ver: + ver = git_version() cleanbuild = cleanbuild and 'dirty' not in ver if not ver: ver = file_version()
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 04:25:53PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.org
scripts/buildversion.py | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/buildversion.py b/scripts/buildversion.py index 8875497..fc2decd 100755 --- a/scripts/buildversion.py +++ b/scripts/buildversion.py @@ -113,7 +113,9 @@ def main():
cleanbuild, toolstr = tool_versions(options.tools)
- ver = git_version()
- ver = os.getenv('SEABIOS_VERSION')
- if not ver:
ver = git_version()
Can you give some background on how this is intended to be used?
We used to allow the version string to be overridden, but we found the results were a bit chaotic - different people chose different names and it was hard to correlate a bug report to the source of the code. So, we changed to the scheme detailed at:
https://www.seabios.org/Build_overview#Distribution_builds
Cheers, -Kevin
On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 13:33 -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
Can you give some background on how this is intended to be used?
We used to allow the version string to be overridden, but we found the results were a bit chaotic - different people chose different names and it was hard to correlate a bug report to the source of the code. So, we changed to the scheme detailed at:
I encountered a build system with SeaBIOS in a git submodule of the main project.
The main project has an out-of-tree build, and currently *copies* everything from the SeaBIOS submodule (except .git) into the build directory and building it there. It creates a .version file with the overall version number of the main project.
By setting OUT= and KCONFIG_CONFIG= I can do a proper out of tree build from the original read-only SeaBIOS submodule... except for the version number. This solves that.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 07:01:06PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 13:33 -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
Can you give some background on how this is intended to be used?
We used to allow the version string to be overridden, but we found the results were a bit chaotic - different people chose different names and it was hard to correlate a bug report to the source of the code. So, we changed to the scheme detailed at:
I encountered a build system with SeaBIOS in a git submodule of the main project.
The main project has an out-of-tree build, and currently *copies* everything from the SeaBIOS submodule (except .git) into the build directory and building it there. It creates a .version file with the overall version number of the main project.
By setting OUT= and KCONFIG_CONFIG= I can do a proper out of tree build from the original read-only SeaBIOS submodule... except for the version number. This solves that.
Okay, thanks for the info. However, since my past experience with completely custom versioning wasn't positive, I'd prefer the main repo to encourage using the EXTRAVERSION method instead.
-Kevin
On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 18:48 -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
The main project has an out-of-tree build, and currently *copies* everything from the SeaBIOS submodule (except .git) into the build directory and building it there. It creates a .version file with the overall version number of the main project.
By setting OUT= and KCONFIG_CONFIG= I can do a proper out of tree build from the original read-only SeaBIOS submodule... except for the version number. This solves that.
Okay, thanks for the info. However, since my past experience with completely custom versioning wasn't positive, I'd prefer the main repo to encourage using the EXTRAVERSION method instead.
Ack. I'll come up with a different approach. Thanks.
-
David Woodhouse -
Kevin O'Connor