This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: CVS branches and versioning
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:52:58PM -0800, Eric Christopher wrote:
> 2.15.90 is the precursor to 2.16
>
> 2.14.90 is the precursor to 2.15
Exactly. Al, when binutils 2.15 is released - it hasn't been! - then
the version will be "GNU ar 2.15". A bit after, it will be "GNU ar
2.15 20040404", and then "GNU ar 2.15.1"...
>
> -eric
>
> On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 14:46, Al Stone wrote:
> > I am very confused. Let me embarass myself for a moment...
> >
> > If I check out a copy of binutils from CVS with:
> >
> > $ export CVSROOT=:pserver:anoncvs@sources.redhat.com:/cvs/src
> > $ cvs login
> > $ cvs -z9 co binutils
> >
> > I get binutils 2.15.90 (well, not entirely -- the make fails
> > on ia64 Linux, but that's another problem); bfd/configure
> > contains 2.15.90 for the VERSION value and all the executables
> > built report it as they should, e.g.:
> >
> > $ ar --version
> > GNU ar 2.15.90 20040305
> > ...
> >
> > So far, so good. This makes some sense -- mainline for
> > the tree should be the upcoming version.
> >
> > Here's the problem: if I check out with the 2.15 branch
> > tag like so:
> >
> > $ cvs -z9 co -rbinutils-2_15-branch binutils
> >
> > And then build this source version, I get 2.14.90, _not_
> > 2.15 (bfd/configure does say 2.14.90). For example:
> >
> > $ ar --version
> > GNU ar 2.14.90 20040218
> > ...
> >
> > I just repeated this about 10 minutes ago, just to make
> > sure I wasn't doing something silly.
> >
> > Isn't this backwards? Or am I just misunderstanding
> > something horribly? I'm hoping it's the latter...
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> --
> Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>
>
>
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer