Preliminary Fedora Packages (was: fl2k: Versioning?)

Müller, Marcus (CEL) mueller at kit.edu
Fri Apr 27 14:31:23 UTC 2018


I've decided to go with a package version of 0.0.0.0_DATEgitSHORTHASH
so as to avoid conflict with whatever you decide to come up with (which
really, really is your business).

And whoever would like Fedora 26,27,28,rawhide packages (my
CentOS/RedHat/EPEL 7 build broke because things):

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/marcusmueller/osmo-fl2k/

Note that I'm not trying to be "official upstream", so as usual, please
make sure this package contains what you really want. For now, it seems
to do what is needed to make fl2k_test etc. work, and installs the
library as well as the udev rules that make the dongle belong to group
"fl2k". Maybe I should be splitting things into libfl2k and fl2k-utils
and fl2k-filesystem or something to separate libs, executables and udev
rules.

Best regards,
Marcus

On Fri, 2018-04-27 at 11:34 +0000, Müller, Marcus (CEL) wrote:
> Hi everyone, hi especially Steve,
> 
> I'm in the process of making a distro package for fl2k for sharing
> and
> inclusion in my bootable Fedora sticks; as a version, I'd use
> 0.0.0.1-
> githash, but I think that's an understatement, because it looks to me
> like fl2k was officially released at OsmoCon.
> 
> Now, I'm not the author, and I'd hate to be the one to define today's
> git head as version 1, or something like that, but I honestly think
> that it's worth encouraging tagging of a release (as it would make it
> easy to refer to things like "hey, that used to work with 1.0.2.1,
> but
> broke in 1.0.3.1", or include it with other software etc).
> 
> Would it be very annoying to kindly request that you add a version
> tag,
>  and to even brazenly recommend semver.org as versioning scheme?
> 
> 
> Thanks, and I'm having great fun with this,
> 
> Marcus


More information about the osmocom-sdr mailing list