Avidemux 2.7.4 VC++ 64bits - Fileversion is missing

[juergen_m]

The Fileversion in the properties of avidemux.exe is empty/missing.
This is bad because Update-Software is scanning this info.
No info - no update if there is one.

[eumagga0x2a]

Confirming that this is broken in VC++ builds, works in MinGW builds. Thank you for your report.

Regarding updates, I don't think this matters as Avidemux has its own update notifier. Anyway, users are almost always better off tracking the development and using the latest nightly.

[thomas.besser]

I would also appreciate to have this information.

My intention is to automatically packaging windows binaries into a OPSI (https://opsi.org/) package for deployment.
Therefore the correct version of the binary should be verifiable.

[eumagga0x2a]

Using a hash is much better for fingerprinting a file, but if the version info embedded into .exe is a requirement, please consider using a MinGW build from https://avidemux.org/nightly/win64/ (r190814 is the 2.7.4 release).

[thomas.besser]

Thanks for the additional link.

This answers my next question/request for the files from the QT-build without an .exe at once

What are the plans about the parallel building (MinGW vs. QT): will both offered in the near future or do you plan EOL of the MinGW?

[eumagga0x2a]

I am not that much into packaging, but once remaining VC++ bugs have been fixed and a few still missing filters have been ported, MinGW 64 bits builds might be dropped. The original plan was surely to unify packaging across platforms, currently stalled due to Qt installer framework bugs and my inability to setup a working VC++ build environment.

Regardless the availability of official builds, you can always easily cross-compile without installer for Windows in an MXE on Fedora, Ubuntu or a different Linux distribution supported by MXE.

[thomas.besser]

Thanks for clarification. Yes, unifying packaging should mean less work. Hopefully the missing file version in VC++ builds will then be fixed.

[eumagga0x2a]

Yes, unifying packaging should mean less work. Hopefully the missing file version in VC++ builds will then be fixed.

Unsure about the former. Most probably much, much sooner regarding the latter.