No, it's a conflict between doc/Makefile.am and recent changes in
m_pd.h. doc/Makefile.am is quite fragile and a seemingly
reasonablechange to m_pd.h broke it. I have to get to a couple of other
things now but will try to figure out what to do tomorrow... possibly
just take the version-number-setting hack out of the doc :)
cheers
M
On 5/8/24 9:25 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
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
