search

autopkg / adobe-ccp-recipes

Autopkg recipes for Creative Cloud Packager workflows
23 stars 6 forks source link

LightroomCC CFBundleShortVersionString #18

Open geoffklee opened 6 years ago

geoffklee commented 6 years ago

Because of this: https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom-version-numbers-cfshortbundleversionstring

LightroomCC ends up with a useless %version% output from CreativeCloudVersioner.py (eg: Adobe Lightroom CC [20180608-0705-e1ba7c8]).

Would you be interested in special-casing it in the versioner so that we just keep %version% as it is for that particular app?

My use case is that I'm feeding the output of the CCP into PkgCreator (so that I get flat pkg out) and it isn't at all impressed with a package name which includes the string above.

geoffklee commented 6 years ago

If we detect a CFBundleShortVersionString like the above, we could do something like:

v = re.match(r'.*\[(.*)\]', 'Adobe Lightroom CC [20180608-0705-e1ba7c8]').group(1) v.replace('-', '.')

which would give us a semi-usable: 20180608.0705.e1ba7c8

macmule commented 6 years ago

My use case is that I'm feeding the output of the CCP into PkgCreator (so that I get flat pkg out) and it isn't at all impressed with a package name which includes the string above.

They are not flat-pkgs.. so not sure this will work... otherwise the version 20180608-0705-e1ba7c8 should be fine for jamf & munki etc

geoffklee commented 6 years ago

It works really well, actually. The adobe CCP produces bundle packages which just run a postinstall script to kick off the install. The entire 'Resources' folder can be used as the 'Scripts' folder for a flat package, which is much tidier and quicker to install.

As far as this issue goes, here's what I'm using at present: #20

You're right that 20180608-0705-e1ba7c8 would be acceptable to use as a version number in some scenarios but it would break some schemes which expect version-release as x.x.x.x-y.y.y.