[coreboot] [PATCH] Add subversion number

Ulf Jordan jordan at chalmers.se
Fri Apr 4 21:31:38 CEST 2008

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Peter Stuge wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 02:25:31PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:56:37AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
>>> I really like this idea but the patch depends on svn being installed
>>> to build properly.

Yes, that was (partially) discussed [1] in the thread leading up to the 
original implementation for superiotool.

>> Yes, but I think it would be ok if we use "unknown" or "0" or something
>> like that if svn is not available
> For tarballs that we make available I don't like that so much.
> It is very useful information to have in debug logs.

True, that would be nice. However it is non-trivial to automatically get a 
more *accurate* (fallback) revision number in a non-subversion 

The needed information is lost when the tarball is generated, e.g. by 
viewvc. Extracting and preserving that information on the fly looks 
cumbersome (would neccessitate changes to viewvc and whatever generates 
the snapshots at qa.coreboot.org)

OTOH, using a not-so-accurate fallback like "unknown" or "0" (possibly 
even the revision number of the Makefile) looks perfectly tractable: 
substitute the fallback when the output from the svnversion pipeline is 

>> (haven't tried what happens currently).
> I expect it to just be blank.

Yes (I have seen some superiotool dumps like that on the list).

Also note that the patch at the start of this thread is based on the 
superiotool/flashrom code, which does not recurse into subdirectories [2]. 
A subdirectory aware pipeline is available in [3].

[1] http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2007-October/025606.html
[2] http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2007-October/025630.html
[3] http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2007-October/026139.html


More information about the coreboot mailing list