ubuntu-hams team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Marsden <jmarsden@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/19/2011 04:37 PM, John Nogatch wrote:

> OK, I installed the jmarsden packages for 386, EDIT and SIGN of ADIF
> files works; I was able to upload to LOTW and now have Isle of Man
> confirmed.

Great, thanks for the quick testing!

> I note that Help->About says "unofficial":
>     TQSL V1.13.unofficial.750

Regarding "unofficial", I am not sure what the intent of that subfield
really is.  If the packages make it into Ubuntu or Debian repositories,
are they then "official"?  Or does "official" mean "created by ARRL
itself"?  Is this documented anywhere?

Obviously we *can* make it say anything we like, just by adding
- --with-build=official or perhaps --with-build=ubuntu or
- --with-build=debian to the ./configure call in debian/rules .  The
question is whether we *should*, since the folks who created the
packages for earlier releases did not do so.

My suggestion, if we want to do anything with this, would be to do
something like:

  ./configure --prefix=/usr --with-build=`lsb_release -is`

(and add lsb-release to Build-Depends, of course) so we would get either
Ubuntu or Debian in there, depending which OS the package was build on.
 Does that make sense?  For extra verbosity, we could get slightly
trickier, and do something more like:

  ./configure --prefix=/usr --with-build=`lsb_release -ds |tr A-Z a-z
|sed -e 's/ /-/g'`

so that the 'unofficial' would be replaced by 'ubuntu-10.04.2-lts' or
whatever, but to me that seems like overkill.

Ideas welcomed.

Jonathan
N6JU
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk2FT5IACgkQUGfT4+mKBLJHgwCfTiTj3D79ET14THXiBXjomIp6
Nq0An2JA9xOkZA2LE5K3HUP9e/+4M76f
=oLR4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----