kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/02/2013 12:44 PM, Vesa Solonen wrote:
> 02.01.2013 16:31, Adam Wolf kirjoitti:
>> Hi Solonen,
>>
>> There previously was a bug in my packaging that caused the wrong date to be
>> pulled in to the build version information.  I had fixed it a while ago,
>> but I will see if there is a regression.
> Thanks for a prompt response. It's great that you are taking care of the
> PPA. At home I'm compiling my own, but elsewhere the PPA does the trick.


> IMHO a date information is not really needed, just BZR revision number.
> That's the only unambiguous way.


They are not mutually exclusive, but I agree that the BZR revision number is the most
important element.

For all the noise about this, over multiple years, I would like to see a better solution.


CMake can generate an unconditional target that simply runs on every build.  Conceptually
execution of the custom target would look like this in psuedo code


1) Get the bzr revision number, unconditionally.

2) If it is different than previously known, then update a *.cpp file, so a recompile is
necessary, *else not*.


The above two steps are done by Make, not CMake, although the generation of them is by
CMake.  Since the Make is doing it then, it always happens and you never have a bad
version number.


Pleeeeeeeeease.