Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Or you could do it and send a patch, but..
Well, I can. The only reason to squash those two is they change the exact
same lines twice, so it entirely supersedes the first one.
>> > if no one has any issues with this file.
>> ..since the resource file has the DLL filename I guess we need two
>> resources files; one for debug and one for release builds?
Well, I mean if there's any issue with manually changing that one #include
line. My concern is breaking the resource editor. It does have the
filename, but an #ifdef fixes it. I'll push that later. Apparently the
resource editor isn't QUITE as dumb as I'd been concerned about.
>> For the Copyright since there is no single copyright holder it might
>> be best to put a reference to source files there instead?
>> "GNU LGPL v2.1 or later, see individual source files" ?
Sure, though keep in mind that you already have to scroll to see the "v2.1
or later" part on Orin's machine (Win7), as the part of the builtin Windows
UI that shows it is very short. Mine (XP) shows a few more characters
(shows up to the "l" in later), but still a lot is cut off. The point is,
no one would initially see the extra phrase. I can still add it, if you
>> And FileDescription and ProductName should perhaps be libusb-1 or
>> libusb-1.0, since it is a distinct API?
Based on Daniel's response earlier about the public API and v2.0, I'm
thinking libusb-1, not 1.0?
>> Could 1,0,5,0 be made into a #define so that only one place needs
>> updating each release? Maybe it would make sense to have a separate
>> top-level file which sets the version and is included by others?
Yes and no. We could do that (I think; haven't tested), but one would need
to be very careful editing it, and there *may* need to be several #defines,
depending on whether the resource editor handles # (stringizing) correctly.
After finding other stupidity in visual studio, it's hard to know for sure.
This will certainly prevent someone from using the GUI to change the version
number, though, so a code-generation script may be wiser here. It is a
simple search-and-replace. What do you think?