Hi, On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 11:45 AM m. allan noah <kitno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, this used to be done manually for years, and it worked fine. This > particular automation is more trouble than it is worth. > > OK I will do some investigations before committing anything. There are a few different elements to this including the various automation processes on GitLab and in the build itself, and also of course the build documentation. I will come up with a robust method of generating the git tag for situations where we amend the release version. It will probably be very similar to what we do now. Cheers, Ralph > "well, I stand up next to a mountain- and I chop it down with the edge of > my hand" > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2025, 1:38 PM Ralph Little <skelb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I have been chasing up a version issue related to saned. The saned in the >> latest version 1.4.0 is reporting its version as 1.2.1. I just managed to >> figure out that the git snapshots are determining this (in the absence of >> git log) by seeing which is the most recent ChangeLog file in the >> Changelogs directory. I will fix this: our release process doe not seem to >> be generating these files at the moment. >> >> However, I have seen a *number* of different places where the current >> version of sane-backends is determined by various different methods. >> Honestly, this seems pretty insane. There is a simple mechanism to set the >> version number by setting the appropriate variable in configure.ac when >> we do a release. We could remove a lot of this unnecessary complexity by >> just reverting to the time-honoured method of just updating it as part of >> the release process. As part of re-engineering the sane-frontends build >> files for the up-coming release, I have done just that. >> >> I understand that there is a complication where we are attaching >> additional git info when building from git, which we also do when building >> for the git PPA, but my main attention is towards the current release >> version. I don't think that it is too onerous to just update configure.ac >> as part of the release process. >> >> Are there any objections to my making this change? Have I missed out some >> secret sauce that we are catering for? >> >> Cheers, >> Ralph >> >
