-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update core. #49
Comments
Hi there! I'm surprised I haven't noticed this until now. 🍭 1.9.0 is the Retroarch version you're using and display changes when you go older / newer. But you're right! The version number is blank and only shows SHA commit. Upstream expects us to run base Makefile which has VERSION tag correctly set. But libretro requires using its own Makefiles (important for Android building), which is missing this tag. So I've setup one for the buildbot which is 0.13.3. I don't have a fix suggestion for upstream. That'd be for @LIJI32 or @twinaphex I guess. As for rebasing the libretro core to better sync with upstream 0.13.6, uhm... I don't think it can be done via Github Web GUI. Meaning the 'behind' and 'ahead' commit messages. But maybe one of the maintainers would know! |
It seems that this core is a little abandoned, since it marks version 1.15.4 and we are at 1.16.2, which although it seems that there are few changes at the emulation level, it is missing the Frame Blending function. It would be good to review it a little and update it. Thank you. |
It seems that the emulator was updated, we are at 0.16.3 which is from April 12, 2024 and 0.16.5 was just released which is the next one from May, I think without changes or very few at the emulation level. But it's good that it continues to be updated. Thank you. |
In the version number of this core it appears as 1.9.0 which is rare and does not match the standalone version. It's a mistake??
On the other hand, the core I think is in 0.13.3 and they already updated to 0.13.6, so I think that if there are no errors and it is up to date or when it is updated, the numbering would have to match unless this forked gets too far apart that it follows its own numbering.
These details make many think that the cores used in Retroarch are very old and prefer not to use them, just because of the numbers of the versions.
Thank you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: