geda-developers team mailing list archive

[Dan McMahill <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/12/2011 5:39 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:29:57 -0500, Dan McMahill <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2011 6:30 AM, Dan McMahill wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2011 6:37 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
>>>
>>>>    As a rule, we should be providing manpages for all binaries
> installed
>>>>    in the $PATH.  Currently, the following lack manpages:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>    - pads_backannotate
>>>>    - pcb_backannotate
>>>>    - refdes_renum
>>>>    - sw2asc
>>>
>>> I'll make man pages for these.
>>>
>>
>> Couple of quick questions.
>>
>> 1)  Do we have any sort of a man page linter that should be run?
> 
> No, sorry.
> 
>> 2)  Some of those scripts have -V|--version options that are broken.
>> They are broken because they used to work by searching inside of $0
>> (ARGV[0]) and looking for an RCS Id.  Of course once we moved from cvs
>> to git that stopped "working".  I say "working" because it is not clear
>> that this was ever the correct version to report but it was better than
>> nothing.  So.... do I nuke that option entirely from the scripts?  I'd
>> sort of rather not because it is that much less debug information that
>> can go in a bug report.  If I keep it, any good ideas on how to get the
>> version information into shell scripts and perl programs?
> 
> Ideally, they should output something like:
> 
> gEDA 1.7.1 (g9e89e5c)
> Copyright (C) 1998-2011 gEDA developers
> This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under
> certain conditions. For details, see the file `COPYING', which is
> included in the gEDA distribution.
> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
> 
> I can't really think of a good way of getting that information into them,
> though, other than sed-based substitution. :-(

I could potentially build the script either at configure time or at
build time.  Rename, for example, pcb_backannotate to
pcb_backannotate.in and then put the info in.  Something like a here
document with a placeholder, @version@, in it.



>> 3)  Looking at some of the existing man pages (gnetlist.1 for example),
>> I see a string like 1.7.1.20110619 in the header.  Is there a rule for
>> what should go here?
> 
> Yes; Ales has always put the version of the latest release there, in the
> form <dottedversion>.<date>.

Isn't that a pain if it is put there manually?