You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> on 2006/01/18 10:47:14 UTC
SWIG 1.3.27?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Could someone who knows summarize where we are with regards to SWIG 1.3.27 ?
Thanks.
Max.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFDzhyyfFNSmcDyxYARAumTAJ0dJVY0p6RvXxCzkNOj5nHfFyaJaQCdEbsJ
wjRqYdeIdFSh0Nkx5RCDksI=
=GlTi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SWIG 1.3.27?
Posted by David James <dj...@collab.net>.
On 1/22/06, Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> David James wrote:
> > Does this patch look good?
> Yes!
Thanks. I've committed this patch in r18205 and proposed it for
backport to 1.3.0.
Cheers,
David
--
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SWIG 1.3.27?
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
David James wrote:
>
> Does this patch look good?
Yes!
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SWIG 1.3.27?
Posted by David James <dj...@collab.net>.
Hi Julian,
Thanks for your feedback! I've attached a new patch which addresses
your concerns. See below.
On 1/20/06, Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > Currently, our build system prints a warning when SWIG 1.3.26 or
> > 1.3.27 are used. The attached patch (which I haven't tested yet)
> > removes the warning.
> [...]
> > AC_MSG_WARN([Detected SWIG version $SWIG_VERSION_RAW])
> > AC_MSG_WARN([This is not compatible with Subversion])
> > - AC_MSG_WARN([Subversion can use SWIG version 1.3.24 or later])
> > + AC_MSG_WARN([Subversion is only compatible with versions of SWIG])
> > + AC_MSG_WARN([between 1.3.24 and 1.3.27])
>
> That message is still misleading. Let's make it plain and honest. We don't
> know that Subversion isn't compatible with 1.3.28. Say something like:
>
> Detected SWIG version $SWIG_VERSION_RAW. Subversion requires at
> least version 1.3.24 and is known to work with versions up to 1.3.27.
Much clearer! I'll use this message instead (with a few tweaks)
> (If that's not the case, and we know it won't work with the next version of
> SWIG, then we should change this warning into a hard error.)
The SWIG folks don't make any compatibility guarantees between
versions, but it's possible that SWIG 1.3.28 will work.
> Also, you need to heed the comment just above that test that says:
>
> > # If you change the required swig version number, don't forget to update:
> > # subversion/bindings/swig/INSTALL
> > # subversion/bindings/swig/NOTES
> > # packages/rpm/redhat-8+/subversion.spec
> > # packages/rpm/redhat-7.x/subversion.spec
> > # packages/rpm/rhel-3/subversion.spec
> > # packages/rpm/rhel-4/subversion.spec
>
> It would also be good to insert comments in those places referring back to this
> m4 macro file, and remove the specific version numbers from one or more of
> those places to reduce the amount of duplication.
Good idea! I've updated subversion/bindings/swig/INSTALL, and removed
the reference to SWIG versions in "NOTES".
I don't think the subversion.spec files need to be updated this time.
Does this patch look good?
Cheers,
David
--
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
Re: SWIG 1.3.27?
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
David James wrote:
>
> I added unofficial support for SWIG 1.3.27 to Subversion trunk in
> r17279 and r17280. We should probably port these fixes to Subversion
> 1.3.x.
>
> Currently, our build system prints a warning when SWIG 1.3.26 or
> 1.3.27 are used. The attached patch (which I haven't tested yet)
> removes the warning.
[...]
> Index: build/ac-macros/swig.m4
> ===================================================================
> --- build/ac-macros/swig.m4 (revision 18117)
> +++ build/ac-macros/swig.m4 (working copy)
> @@ -76,13 +76,14 @@
> # packages/rpm/rhel-4/subversion.spec
> if test -n "$SWIG_VERSION" &&
> test "$SWIG_VERSION" -ge "103024" &&
> - test "$SWIG_VERSION" -le "103025"; then
> + test "$SWIG_VERSION" -le "103027"; then
> SWIG_SUITABLE=yes
> else
> SWIG_SUITABLE=no
> AC_MSG_WARN([Detected SWIG version $SWIG_VERSION_RAW])
> AC_MSG_WARN([This is not compatible with Subversion])
> - AC_MSG_WARN([Subversion can use SWIG version 1.3.24 or later])
> + AC_MSG_WARN([Subversion is only compatible with versions of SWIG])
> + AC_MSG_WARN([between 1.3.24 and 1.3.27])
That message is still misleading. Let's make it plain and honest. We don't
know that Subversion isn't compatible with 1.3.28. Say something like:
Detected SWIG version $SWIG_VERSION_RAW. Subversion requires at
least version 1.3.24 and is know to work with versions up to 1.3.27.
(If that's not the case, and we know it won't work with the next version of
SWIG, then we should change this warning into a hard error.)
Also, you need to heed the comment just above that test that says:
> # If you change the required swig version number, don't forget to update:
> # subversion/bindings/swig/INSTALL
> # subversion/bindings/swig/NOTES
> # packages/rpm/redhat-8+/subversion.spec
> # packages/rpm/redhat-7.x/subversion.spec
> # packages/rpm/rhel-3/subversion.spec
> # packages/rpm/rhel-4/subversion.spec
It would also be good to insert comments in those places referring back to this
m4 macro file, and remove the specific version numbers from one or more of
those places to reduce the amount of duplication.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SWIG 1.3.27?
Posted by David James <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 1/18/06, Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> wrote:
> Could someone who knows summarize where we are with regards to SWIG 1.3.27 ?
I added unofficial support for SWIG 1.3.27 to Subversion trunk in
r17279 and r17280. We should probably port these fixes to Subversion
1.3.x.
Currently, our build system prints a warning when SWIG 1.3.26 or
1.3.27 are used. The attached patch (which I haven't tested yet)
removes the warning.
AFAIK, the "new swig vs. the #error in apr.h" issue is already fixed
in Subversion 1.3, since Subversion 1.3 no longer asks SWIG to look at
apr.h.
Cheers,
David
--
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
Re: SWIG 1.3.27?
Posted by Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org>.
[Max Bowsher]
> Could someone who knows summarize where we are with regards to SWIG
> 1.3.27 ?
I'm not "someone who knows", but...
Our 1.3.0 build for Debian [experimental] uses swig 1.3.27 - that is,
it doesn't use the prebuilt files from the release tarball. I added
r17280 from trunk, and a crude hack -DPATH_MAX=4096 to work around the
"new swig vs. the #error in apr.h" issue. It appears to run fine.
I haven't stress-tested the bindings - I don't really know how - but
at least the check-swig-{py,pl,rb} testsuites pass.