On 07/27/2010 01:51 AM, Dominik Riebeling wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Robert Bieber<robby_at_bieberphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> This week I'm going to spend a little time packaging the code I have so far
>> into a tarball and a deb package (and probably setting up a PPA for Ubuntu
>>
> Do you want to package a source tarball? For that there's almost no
> work needed -- I've adjusted the script deploy-release.py used for
> Rockbox Utility to do that for the binaries of the Theme Editor I
> provide. It's basically just editing the application name and source
> files needed at the top of the script. However, since I want to avoid
> having two copies of the script around that only differ in some
> variables set at the beginning I still want to rework that script into
> a module and haven't committed my current version yet. I'll try to
> look into that again tonight.
>
> If you consider packages, have you thought about version numbers?
> Right now the binary doesn't have a way to tell about its version, a
> simple About dialog that shows a version number and license would be a
> good thing IMO.
>
>
> - Dominik
>

I switched the Qt version number to 0.5, but that's obviously not
specific enough: I'd like to have the binaries numbered 0.5rXXXXX...,
with the revision number there. Perhaps I could accomplish this with an
SVN keyword the way we fill in the Id in the headers? I'll have to read
up on this

-Robert
Received on 2010-07-27