Gentoo ebuild / Need cvs tag for 1.4.0 beta (please)

[daniel.santos]

I have assembled a Gentoo ebuild for 1.4.0. However, I've had to take the head (from yesterday) and package it for the sources. This is very far from ideal. Can we please, please, pretty pretty please with sugar and dual core AMD processors on top, get a tag somewhere that I can call 1.4.0? (or 1.4.0 beta1 or something?)

 

The proposed ebuild is here: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180783. It uses the pre-compiled linux zip file for the data (and just removes the .bin files) and the compiles using sources from yesterday. It now supports a map-editor USE flag to compile the map editor. It still has a problem with creating the proper icon for the client when map-editor is enabled.

 

Thanks,

Daniel

[Vrumfondel]

just try

 

ECVS_CO_OPTS="-D 'Sun Jun 3 19:02:15 UTC 2007'"
ECVS_UP_OPTS="${ECVS_CO_OPTS} -dP -A"

 

in the ebuild or check out a copy as of that date, remove stuff and tarbzip2 the sources

Edited June 21, 2007 by Vrumfondel

[daniel.santos]

Is Sun Jun 3 19:02:15 UTC 2007 a special date (good build)? If so, I'll rebuild my sources tarball from that, but also, it would be nice to tag it.

 

Daniel

[Vrumfondel]

Yes, that was the time (more or less) when learner committed the update for the client version info (the final commit before the server update).

 

i agree that it would be nice to tag it

Edited June 21, 2007 by Vrumfondel

[Learner]

Yes, that was the time (more or less) when learner committed the update for the client version info (the final commit before the server update).

 

i agree that it would be nice to tag it

I would have tagged it, but other changes had already been commited that weren't in the official Client.

[ttlanhil]

I'll give you another problem... There were changes since then that were in the Windows "patch" that Entropy put out for bugfixing. The latest "patch" is probably the stable client nowadays (although it was pretty much just bug fixing. And considering which people actually test CVS and/or the RCs, it's likely most applies only to windows)

[daniel.santos]

thank you very much all! I think this'll do it. I'm going to call it 1.4.0-rc1 if that's ok with you alls (I gotta label it something and if there's a 1.4.0 final, I'll look stupid --- which I already do --- so I'll look even more stupid.. is possible?...)

 

Daniel

[Entropy]

Well, it is NOT a RC. Our RCs are just before an update, so just call it 1.4.0.final or 1.4.0.beta

[daniel.santos]

Gentoo naming convention requires using beta<n> (where <n> is the beta release number), I can't just use "beta". As such, I'm going to use 1.4.0_beta1 unless there are any objections. Thanks for your help!

 

Daniel

[Entropy]

Well, how about final then? Because that IS the final 1.4.0 release

[trollson]

Shouldn't this be "1.4.0-r1" in the Gentoo scheme? The "r1" referring to the packaging revision rather than the product version (though you can sneakly roll in patches under the guise of a revision).

 

For CVS: Why don't you just make release branches from the trunk when you hit code freeze? See the GCC Timeline for an example.

[Guest baneazaghal]

Actually, first version of the ebuild would be called "eternal-lands-1.4.0". Then, if some kind of patch is needed, you add a new package (ebuild) called "eternal-lands-1.4.0-r1", and so on. And tagging a revision, or supplying a source archive, helps a lot of distro maintainers out there. So, one solution would be to supply us with a source tar.(bz2|gz) file from the time of building the EL client (we could then upload it to Gentoo distfiles mirrors, so you wouldn't spend your bandwidth for something like this). Vrumfondel's suggestion will work as well if tagging is out of question, but could we know what exact revision was used for compiling the GNU/Linux client if it's possible?