Re: [PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

Am 12. Mai 2024 17:45:17 MESZ schrieb Christof Ressi :
>
>> the meaning of PD_VERSION_CODE is really "a single code(number) expression 
>> the (entire) version of Pd", and belongs into the same family as 
>> PD_VERSION_MAJOR ("a single (code)number expression the major version of 
>> Pd").
>> having PD_VERSION_MAJOR and PD_CODE_VERSION adds additional mental load that 
>> i would rather avoid.
>Agree 100%!
>

And thank god, Christof can parse my autocompletion English... 

Of course, it should have read: "a single code/number *expressing* the [...] 
version of Pd".


mfg.sfg.jfd
IOhannes


___
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

Re: [PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings

[Christof Ressi]

the meaning of PD_VERSION_CODE is really "a single code(number) 
expression the (entire) version of Pd", and belongs into the same 
family as PD_VERSION_MAJOR ("a single (code)number expression the 
major version of Pd").
having PD_VERSION_MAJOR and PD_CODE_VERSION adds additional mental 
load that i would rather avoid.

Agree 100%!



___
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

Re: [PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 5/8/24 18:49, Miller Puckette wrote:
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?




i see you renamed the define.
however, the recent changes accepted by you already fixed the parsing 
issues we were having, so the version in 1.introduction.txt was replaced 
correctly.


 all in all i do not see a reason to use 
PD_VERSION_{MAJOR,MINOR,BUGFIX} on one hand, and on the other 
PD_CODE_VERSION version.


the meaning of PD_VERSION_CODE is really "a single code(number) 
expression the (entire) version of Pd", and belongs into the same family 
as PD_VERSION_MAJOR ("a single (code)number expression the major version 
of Pd").
having PD_VERSION_MAJOR and PD_CODE_VERSION adds additional mental load 
that i would rather avoid.


I now see that the correct action from me (and dan) would have been to 
both object the rename and propose a fix.
rather than just propose a fix (and assume that this would obsolete the 
rename).

sorry for the inconvenience.

gfdmsar
IOhannes



OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

Re: [PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 5/8/24 22:50, Dan Wilcox wrote:

PD_VERSION_CODE was added and shows up in the grep output as a second line. The 
fix is to simply filter it out when grabbing the values. A fix is here:

https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/2298


i missed your PR and submitted my own version for the fix, with a 
slightly different approach:
- use autotools $(VERSION) rather than doing the brittle calculations 
ourselves (this shifts the authoritative source for the version from 
m_pd.h to configure.ac; i think this is no great loss, as they must be 
in sync anyhow)

- also implement a fix for the non-autotools buildsystems (src/makefile.*)
- here i tightened the search filter to only include #defines of (e.g.) 
'PD_MAJOR_VERSION' itself, and not some arbitrary line that contains the 
"PD_MAJOR_VERSION" string (and filtering out known false-positives, like 
lines containing also "PD_VERSION_CODE")





gfmdsr
IOhannes


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

Re: [PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings

[Dan Wilcox]

PD_VERSION_CODE was added and shows up in the grep output as a second line. The 
fix is to simply filter it out when grabbing the values. A fix is here:

https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/2298

> On May 8, 2024, at 9:27 PM, pd-dev-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 21:29:43 +0200
> From: Miller Puckette  <mailto:mpucke...@cloud.ucsd.edu>>
> To: Alexandre Torres Porres mailto:por...@gmail.com>>
> Cc: pd-dev mailto:pd-dev@lists.iem.at>>
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings
> Message-ID: <58043f32-0a8d-4aa9-9a03-a070d6c45...@cloud.ucsd.edu 
> <mailto:58043f32-0a8d-4aa9-9a03-a070d6c45...@cloud.ucsd.edu>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> 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


Dan Wilcox
danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/>
robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
___
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

Re: [PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

Am 8. Mai 2024 21:29:43 MESZ schrieb Miller Puckette :
>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 :)
>

I guess the simplest solution to the problem would be to use the version from 
configure.ac, and generate 'doc/1.manual/1.introduction.txt' from 
'doc/1.manual/1.introduction.txt.in' (just like the Makefile's are generated 
from Makefile.in).

Anyhow, I'll have a look at the sed-expression. Shouldn't be too hard


mfg.sfg.jfd
IOhannes


___
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

Re: [PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings

[Miller Puckette]

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  
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
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev





___
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

Re: [PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

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 
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
> Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>
___
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

Re: [PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings

[Miller Puckette]

And... the change I proposed doesn't work.  I can't yet figure out 
how to fix this.


On 5/8/24 6:49 PM, Miller Puckette 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
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

[PD-dev] trouble with Pd version strings

[Miller Puckette]

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
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev