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 mpuckette@cloud.ucsd.edu 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