Re: upgrade of file(1) to 4.10 (including FreeBSD elf(5) fixes)

On 08/02/04 08:20, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Jon Noack wrote:
>> [...]
>> Note that 5.x is hardcoded as -CURRENT.  This is asking to be fixed in 
>> a few months when 5.x goes -STABLE and 6.x appears.  Better not to 
>> print branch names at all (for dev branches I just print the whole 
>> version value in parentheses).  There are other minor nits like 5.0.4 
>> and 4.15.30...
> 
> Yes, you are right. At the time I've submitted the patch the point where 
> FreeBSD would go -STABLE wasn't known, and the branch names are inspired 
> by the output of uname(1). Anyway, this is a virgin import, and we 
> shouldn't patch the sources. I'm sure the 4.11 upgrade will be trivial 
> when we've done the 4.10 upgrade, and usually Christos is pretty 
> responsive. We can do an follow-up patch to 4.10 that we can discuss 
> here before submitting it upstream.

Before I read this email I updated my patch (against 4.10) and 
resubmitted for file 4.11:
http://www.noacks.org/freebsd/readelf.c.diff

Would anyone prefer different output?  If not, it would be great if 
someone could put in a good word for me with Christos... ;-)

For the time being, I say we go ahead and import file 4.10.  As you say, 
future updates should be trivial and getting the hard work out of the 
way now makes it easier to get things done in the future (a 4.10->4.11 
update is a lot easier to justify in a src freeze than 3.41->4.11 should 
the timing come to that).  I want proper version detection in 5.x-STABLE.

Jon