Just to be sure, this is not any change we did in the doc PRs right? And has this ever been like this or what then?
Cheers On Wed, 8 May 2024 at 13:50 Miller Puckette <[email protected]> wrote: > I almost pushed out a test release and then found out that "about Pd" > gives insane version strings like > > this: > > Pd version 0 #define PD_VERSION_CODE PD_VERSION(PD_MAJOR_VERSION, > PD_MINOR_VERSION, PD_BUGFIX_VERSION).54 #define PD_VERSION_CODE > PD_VERSION(PD_MAJOR_VERSION, PD_MINOR_VERSION, PD_BUGFIX_VERSION).1 > #define PD_VERSION_CODE PD_VERSION(PD_MAJOR_VERSION, PD_MINOR_VERSION, > PD_BUGFIX_VERSION) > > I'm pretty sure the culprit is "Makefile.am" in pd/doc: > > # get version info from m_pd.h to use in doc/1.manual/1.introduction.txt > PD_MAJOR_VERSION = $(shell grep PD_MAJOR_VERSION $(M_PD) | \ > sed 's|^.define *PD_MAJOR_VERSION *\([0-9]*\).*|\1|' ) > > [...] > > This is catching the definition of PD_VERSION_CODE in m_pd.h ... > > I couldn't immediately figure out how to fix the ugly Makefile.am stuff, > and anyway the whole thing feels fragile to me. What if we change > PD_VERSION_CODE to PD_CODE_VERSION ? Will that cause anyone trouble? > > cheers > > Miller > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
