Small patch for two scripts. about firmware-mod-kit HOT 13 CLOSED

Thanks for your contribution ;). This is what I hoped to see from the start. I 
will apply them ASAP.

Ok, I admit to being a fiddler. I couldn't leave well enough alone.

I modified it to allow for a "rebuild number" that automatically increments.

This is both sets of patches against the distribution version.

I should say, there's a couple of shell'isms used which may be less than 
perfectly portable but I think they're solid.

Booboo'd on doing the md5sums.

Single line fix.

Thanks again, I'll try to go ahead and commit these during today's work session.

It occurred to me, why not just give you commit access.. That is easier for 
everyone. So, I've done so. Just check back out the project using the 
credentials Google supplies and you can commit whatever changes you like. You 
are clearly a trustworthy and competent developer.

And as the firmware mod kit version changes, perhaps we can host that 
elsewhere, or I can be responsible for updating it on my server. If it can be 
publicly exposed on Google Code, then we should use that route.

Ok, changes checked in.
I did it in two separate actions to allow them to be separated if needed.

Re: #7, I don't think I understand. Isn't this (GoogleCode) a good place for it?

Yes, it is - and exactly what I was saying. I just made the change so that it 
checks the browsed Google code site, using the 'raw file' link. As long as this 
doesn't change, no more of me having to put the TXT file on my web server (and 
messing it up half the time ;p).

Done as of r174. r173 was bad because I used the non-raw URL, which would have 
required more parsing.

Thanks again for your contributions ;). If I can do anything, let me know. I am 
normally busy with my business at Bitsum Technologies, but if you need elevated 
rights or credits (please feel free to add credits for yourself) anywhere, just 
let me know.

Thanks ;)

One quick question, do you remember if there's any conflicts between the 
shared.inc file and the ipkg_* scripts? (I know that they don't use the 
shared.inc file but I want them to.) (I'll also open a separate ticket for it 
when I get ready to do it.)

No conflicts I know of. I do not remember the rationale for not including it in 
those scripts. It may have been a simple lack of necessity at the time.