Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Fix empty version number when building outside of a git repo

[John Garry]

On 28/09/2022 18:26, Will Chandler wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2022, at 5:21, John Garry wrote:
>
> > This looks ok. But did you consider going back to same flow as pre-7572733b8499 to avoid a Makefile check, like:
> >
> > ---8<----
> >
> > CID=
> > TAG=
> > if test -d ../../.git -o -f ../../.git
> > then
> > TAG=$(MAKEFLAGS= make -sC ../.. kernelversion)
> > CID=$(git log -1 --abbrev=12 --pretty=format:"%h" 2>/dev/null) && CID="-g$CID"
> > elif test -f ../../PERF-VERSION-FILE
> > then
> > TAG=$(cut -d' ' -f3 ../../PERF-VERSION-FILE | sed -e 's/\"//g')
> > fi
> > if test -z "$TAG"
> > then
> > TAG=$(MAKEFLAGS= make -sC ../.. kernelversion)
> > fi
> >
> > --->8---
> >
> > The evaluation for $TAG is not really needed in the first leg since the fallback does the same thing, but just added for clarity.
>
> I think that would be fine as well. I don't have a strong opinion on which one
> is easier to follow.
>
> Looking at this more closely, there is a slight difference between the two
> approaches. In the problem scenario my patch will always use `make kernelversion`,
> while pre-7572733b8499 starts with PERF-VERSION-FILE if available, falling
> back to the Makefile.
>
> With the old approach PERF-VERSION-FILE could be used to manually
> override the version, but this is inconsistent with how the version is
> generated when building in a git repo. Is this relevant?

Hmmm... maybe someone would want to customise PERF-VERSION-FILE for 
their own distro. Not sure. But then fiddling with PERF-VERSION-FILE 
might break the parsing so...I guess not.

BTW, is there any other method of building the perf code not considered? 
So far I know:
a. in git tree
b. perf-tar-src-pkg
c. tarball

Thanks,
John