Windows RC rebuild needed

[Matt Harbison]

> On Jan 24, 2020, at 11:32 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:59 PM Matt Harbison <mharbison72 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:27 PM Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I just grafted to stable because the patch should be there for people wanting to use the in-repo packaging code. I actually produced the rc0 installers from an unpublished changeset including the configparser patch.
>>> 
>>> There are also issues with the packaging code when encountering rcN version strings. I'll send another patch or two to stable to make that just work so that the building and releasing of release candidate releases doesn't require manual muckery. You should be able to run a one-liner for it all to "just work."
>> 
>> I'm able to build both locally with this graft, and they look OK at first glance.  Minor detail things I see (and IDK if these matter much in practice):
>> 
>>   - The MSI version when you right click > Properties > Details, say 5.3.3
>>   - The Inno version in the same area is 0.0.0.0
>>   - The MSI that I just uninstalled claimed to be 5.3.7 (This was built before rc1 was labeled)
>>   - The filenames are mercurial-5.3.3-x64.msi vs Mercurial-5.3rc1+3-624fe53ce1e7+20200124-x64.exe for this build on a dirty wdir
> 
> The WiX/MSI version normalization code was pretty buggy. I'll have a patch set up shortly to fix this.
> 
> The Inno version string being 0.0.0.0 is a new bug to me. Unsure if that is a regression or long-time bug.

It appears to be a long time bug. 5.0.2 and 4.0 have the same issue.  I wonder if the problem is the “AppVersion” variable in the *.iss maps to one of the version fields that are hidden on Vista and later, and not used for “FileVersion” which is what is showing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20200125/4ee9b1c2/attachment.html>