Dolphin revision hack -> How to fix this properly?

1st Official Post

    Well it always bothered me that Dolphins "about dialogue" was screwed up and showed utterly garbage. It uses a script to gather some system & git version information that were displayed later in this window:

    The windows build you can download shows the right format so the release 5.0-8223 / branch master / revision git commit.

    Below you see what Dolphin lists in my linux build:

    Code: scmrev.h
    #define SCM_REV_STR "585aa88df03c4f855ef8d66c8d970060986681fb"
#define SCM_DESC_STR "7.90.001-5975-dirty"
#define SCM_BRANCH_STR "libreelec-9.0-rr"
#define SCM_IS_MASTER 0
#define SCM_DISTRIBUTOR_STR "None" 
#define SCM_UPDATE_TRACK_STR ""

    But it should look like this:

    Code: scmrev.h - correct
    #define SCM_REV_STR "7388094e837dc2da9288769db689cd386c7f05bb"
#define SCM_DESC_STR "5.0-8223"
#define SCM_BRANCH_STR "Master"
#define SCM_IS_MASTER 0
#define SCM_DISTRIBUTOR_STR "None"
#define SCM_UPDATE_TRACK_STR ""

    So I added an ugly hack to pre_make_target() to overwrite the wrong information:

    Code: ugly rev hack
    #ugly version hack
  PKG_DOLPHIN_RELEASE="5.0-8223"
  PKG_DOLPHIN_BRANCH="Master"
  printf "#define SCM_REV_STR \""$PKG_VERSION"\"\n""#define SCM_DESC_STR \""$PKG_DOLPHIN_RELEASE"\"\n""#define SCM_BRANCH_STR \""$PKG_DOLPHIN_BRANCH"\"\n""#define SCM_IS_MASTER 0\n""#define SCM_DISTRIBUTOR_STR \"None\"\n""#define SCM_UPDATE_TRACK_STR \"\"\n" > Source/Core/Common/scmrev.h


    This works but I'm not comfortable with solution. I couldn't break the printf output with printf() in single lines like this because this breaks building the package.

    Code
    printf ("#define SCM_REV_STR \""$PKG_VERSION"\"\n"
        "#define SCM_DESC_STR \""$PKG_DOLPHIN_RELEASE"\"\n"
        "#define SCM_BRANCH_STR \""$PKG_DOLPHIN_BRANCH"\"\n"
        "#define SCM_IS_MASTER 0\n""#define SCM_DISTRIBUTOR_STR \"None\"\n"
        "#define SCM_UPDATE_TRACK_STR \"\"\n") > Source/Core/Common/scmrev.h

    And I guess some "sed" function would be a way better solution for this? Any hints are welcome!

    Edited once, last by 5schatten (June 24, 2018 at 10:17 PM).

    It's mainly a "cosmetic" thing. So not a high priority for me. I'm not the greates script writer so I just thought someone has a hint how to handle this.