From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] build: add single source of DPDK version number Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:23:16 +0100 Message-ID: <3536683.yvjcJTvx62@xps> References: <20190307115448.54041-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <6766221.dD9Uvtf5Qj@xps> <20190313111759.GC1118972@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Luca Boccassi To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5908F4F9A for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:23:20 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20190313111759.GC1118972@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 13/03/2019 12:17, Bruce Richardson: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:06:38PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 07/03/2019 14:34, Bruce Richardson: > > > Add a new file DPDK_VERSION to hold the current DPDK version number. > > > Have meson use this file for it's project version, and have make use > > > it for reporting out "showversion" and "showversionum". > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson > > > Acked-by: Luca Boccassi > > [...] > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/DPDK_VERSION > > > > Why not VERSION ? > > > > No particular reason. I just picked a name I thought reasonable, but I'm > fine with just VERSION on its own. > > The one advantage of having DPDK in the title is that if one has a clone to > a directory called e.g. "temp", a quick "ls" will show the forgetful what > product it was that they cloned to a directory with such an unhelpful name. Good try of justification :) I think I prefer just VERSION. > > [...] > > > --- a/mk/rte.sdkconfig.mk > > > +++ b/mk/rte.sdkconfig.mk > > > showversion: > > > - @set -- \ > > > - $$(sed -rne 's,^#define RTE_VER_[A-Z_]*[[:space:]]+([0-9]+).*,\1,p' \ > > > - -e 's,^#define RTE_VER_SUFFIX[[:space:]]+"(.*)",\1,p' \ > > > - $(RTE_SRCDIR)/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_version.h) ;\ > > > - printf '%d.%02d.%d' "$$1" "$$2" "$$3"; \ > > > - if [ -z "$$5" ]; then echo; \ > > > - else printf '%s' "$$4"; \ > > > - if [ $$5 -lt 16 ] ; then echo $$5; \ > > > - else echo $$(($$5 - 16)); fi; \ > > > - fi > > > + @cat $(RTE_SRCDIR)/DPDK_VERSION > > > > I'm a bit sad about removing this complex command ;) > > > Yes, but don't worry, I'm proposing a bit of an addition of sed and awk > to other makefile commands to compensate, though sadly not quite as > unintelligable to the masses as this. :-) I can teach you :)