On Wed, 5 Jan 2022, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:21 PM Martin Storsjö <mar...@martin.st> wrote:
According to the documentation, the VS_FFI_FILEFLAGSMASK mask
consists of all the following flags set:
VS_FF_DEBUG, VS_FF_PATCHED, VS_FF_PRERELEASE, VS_FF_PRIVATEBUILD,
VS_FF_SPECIALBUILD.
The documentation of these fields say e.g. this:
VS_FF_PATCHED File has been modified and is not identical to the
original shipping file of the same version number.
VS_FF_PRIVATEBUILD File was not built using standard release procedures.
If this value is given, the StringFileInfo block must
contain a PrivateBuild string.
It doesn't seem like it's intentional to set all of these flags
(and setting all of them at once doesn't seem like something one
ever would want to do anyway).
FILEFLAGSMASK sets the flags that are valid, not the flags that are
actually set - FILEFLAGS would do that.
So what we are actually doing is telling it all flags are valid, and
none are set (since FILEFLAGS is not set at all).
As far as I can tell, not specifying FILEFLAGSMASK is identical to
specifying it with VS_FFI_FILEFLAGSMASK, so either applying or not
should yield identical information in the binaries.
Oh, sorry, my bad.
Ok then, then I guess the patch description could be this:
---8<---
windows: Remove the unnecessary FILEFLAGSMASK resource version field
This field indicates what fields in FILEFLAGS (which we don't set) are
valid. As long as we don't have any practical use of the flag, omit it for
simplicity.
---8<---
(Or then just leave it as is as it's not wrong as I thought.)
// Martin
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
