Re: Feature request

[Andrew Bradford <andrew@bradfordembedded.com>]

On 10/29/13 00:54, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 03:48:21AM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 29/10/13 03:33, Rich Felker wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 08:13:09PM +0000, Paul Schutte wrote:
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>> Would it be possible for you to add the version of musl to the output of
>>>> libc.so ?
>>>>
>>>> root@sabotage:~# /lib/libc.so
>>>> musl libc/dynamic program loader
>>>> usage: /lib/libc.so pathname [args]
>>>>
>>>> I have several machines with musl on it and it will be very helpful to see
>>>> which version is installed.
>>>
>>> Indeed, this has been something I've wanted to add for a while, and
>>> which should definitely be in for 1.0. It's just a matter of doing the
>>> right thing in the build and release system to get the version in
>>> there, and it's not clear what the version should read for git builds
>>> between versions. I think this is a good chance to discuss that.
>>
>> git describe short signature might be the best option.
> 
> Thanks for the git-fu help. I'm assuming you mean using something like
> "git describe --tags"? Use of this could be contingent on either a
> .git dir, or lack of a version file added to release tarballs.

Linux and u-boot use a script like [1].  Assuming the makefile has the
release version numbering in it and tags to match git, results in
'dirty', 'sha' and 'commits-since-last-tag' style addons to the version
number.  Like:

U-Boot SPL 2011.09-00036-ga61c346-dirty

Dirty (uncommitted changes), 36 commits since last tag, sha of a61c346
is HEAD.  Would this kind of notation work?

[1]:https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/setlocalversion

> The
> only thing that's not clear is how to handle non-release source trees
> present on a build system that lacks a working git installation.

How often is this a concern?
How are people obtaining non-release source trees not via an scm tool?

-Andrew