Re: [Enigma-devel] Re: SVN revision number

[Ronald Lamprecht]

Hi,

Daniel Heck wrote:
> Till Harbaum / Lists wrote:
> > if you don't like the fact that there's some source file being auto 
> > generated you can of course always pass the output of svnversion 
> > directly into the compiler. I don't even want you to parse anything, 
> > so basically something not much more complex than "-D`svnversion`  
> > would do the trick.
>
> But you want to update the revision number also when none of the c++ 
> source files have changed, e.g., when updating the Lua scripts or the 
> levels.

> I would simply run svnversion every single time make is invoked and link the 
> resulting version string into the program.

Both operations, svnversion and compilation, are quite expensive. I am 
not fond of executing both on every edition of the refman, graphics or 
Lua code change.

But both can be optimized. Instead of generating C++ code, that needs a 
compilation, we can simply store the revision info in an ASCII file that 
we can parse on startup, or as Lua code in a separate file.

Futheron the svnversion needs and should only to be executed if .svn is 
present, and .svn is either newer than the generated file, or the 
revision in the generated file does not end on 'M' for modified.

But one problem still remains - the hen-egg problem in case of a "make 
dist". If you svn update your workarea and call make dist, which needs 
to include the svnversion call, the make process will update the po 
files. These files need to be commited to get the resulting svn revision 
for an Enigma release. But the source distribution is packaged with a 
previous revision number,...

May be we should stop the original gettext makefile to update the po 
files on the dist target. That would mean splitting the dist target in 
those tasks that modifiy the sources (target "predist") and those that 
package the sources (including a svnversion). Thus a "make predist; svn 
commit; svn dist" would result in correct revision numbers.

Anyone volunteering in doing and thoroughly testing the necessary changes?

Greets,

Ronald