[PATCH fonts-util 2/2] If cross-compiling, we don't have to run mkfontdir

Jon TURNEY jon.turney at dronecode.org.uk
Tue Sep 20 06:00:28 PDT 2011

On 17/09/2011 02:11, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 09/16/11 06:04, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>> On 16/09/2011 05:21, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>> On 09/12/11 07:18, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>>> +# -------------------
>>>> +# Minimum version: 1.1.1
>>> Shouldn't that be 1.3.0 since we already released 1.2.0?
>> Good catch, thank you.
>> I think I'd prefer to write 1.2.1, as the next version number will be at least
>> that, unless we know that the next version number used is going to be 1.3.0?
> Like xorg-macros, if we're adding a new macro, then the next version number
> will be incrementing the second part of the version (1.x.0), since the macros
> we use for checking minimum version only check the first two parts of the
> version number tuple, using the convention that in major.minor.patch releases,
> patches fix bugs, minors add new APIs, majors break compatibility.

Thanks for the explanation, that makes perfect sense.  Is there something I 
need to do after applying this patch to ensure the next release is given the 
number 1.3.0 rather than 1.2.1? :-)

Revised patch attached.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-If-cross-compiling-we-don-t-have-to-run-mkfontdir.patch
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20110920/e625d6f5/attachment.txt>

More information about the xorg-devel mailing list