This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: CVS branches and versioning
- From: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
- To: ahs3 at fc dot hp dot com
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:52:58 -0800
- Subject: Re: CVS branches and versioning
- References: <1078786001.1306.37.camel@fcboson.fc.hp.com>
2.15.90 is the precursor to 2.16
2.14.90 is the precursor to 2.15
-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>