Re: XForms: autoconf/automake patch

From: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes (Jean-Marc.Lasgouttes@inria.fr)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 06:48:29 EDT

  • Next message: Angus Leeming: "Re: XForms: autoconf/automake patch"

    # To subscribers of the xforms list from Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <Jean-Marc.Lasgouttes@inria.fr> :

    >>>>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <angus.leeming@btopenworld.com> writes:

    Angus> I think we should be able to differentiate between "stable" and
    Angus> "development" branches of the cvs repository. Perhaps we should
    Angus> use FL_REVISION to flag this? Odd numbers: development. Even
    Angus> numbers: stable.

    Angus> #define FL_VERSION 1 #define FL_REVISION 2 #define FL_FIXLEVEL
    Angus> 3

    Angus> Bug fix 3 of the stable xforms 1.2 release.

    This would be OK.

    Angus> #define FL_VERSION 1 #define FL_REVISION 1 #define FL_FIXLEVEL
    Angus> 3

    Angus> This is the xforms 1.1 development cvs tree, with internal tag
    Angus> 3.

    Do we really want to tag unreleased development versions?

    Angus> As you suggest, pre-releases could be flagged as 1.1.90 etc.

    Angus> Does this sound reasonably coherent?

    Or, like what xfree does,

    1.x.y for small y is a stable release
    1.x.y for large y is a prerelease for 1.(x+1).0

    This would mean that we do not mean to do prereleases for stable
    versions...

    Anyway, I do not think that you plan to do enough releases to warrant
    two development trees. I think that doing small changes and frequent
    releases will be much better.

    So you distribute 1.0.2, 1.0.3 with small changes and then, when you
    have a bit more work done, switch to 1.1.0.

    The reason why I proposed these high fixlevel versions is to avoid the
    situation we have where 1.0.0 would refer to 1.0.0 itself or any of
    the prereleases, and all those had different characteristic wrt to how
    they should be used (I am sure that LyX will fail with some of them).

    As you can see, the situation is not clear to me either.

    Angus> I guess that we need a macro that initialises these 3 variables
    Angus> and then does the substitution to AAA.h.in...

    Yes, this part will be easy.

    Angus> Indeed, removing -W removes the warnings. I tried -ansi, but
    Angus> compilation fails; let's deal with that later.

    Just remove -W for now, then.

    JMarc
    _________________________________________________
    To unsubscribe, send the message "unsubscribe" to
    xforms-request@bob.usuhs.mil or see
    http://bob.usuhs.mil/mailserv/xforms.html
    XForms Home Page: http://world.std.com/~xforms
    List Archive: http://bob.usuhs.mil/mailserv/list-archives/
    Development: http://savannah.nongnu.org/files/?group=xforms



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 24 2003 - 06:49:21 EDT