You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com> on 2011/05/24 17:21:59 UTC
Re: bindings in default build?
Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> writes:
> I'll double-check before enabling the bindings build by default. (just
> waiting for more feedback now)
There was a rebuild issue last time I looked at the swig bindings.
Every time I ran make check-swig-foo it rebuilt some (all?) of the foo
bindings, i.e.
make swig-foo
make check-swig-foo
make check-swig-foo
built the bindings three times instead of once.
--
Philip
Re: bindings in default build?
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
"C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net> writes:
> On 05/24/2011 12:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:21, Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>> Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'll double-check before enabling the bindings build by default. (just
>>>> waiting for more feedback now)
>>>
>>> There was a rebuild issue last time I looked at the swig bindings.
>>> Every time I ran make check-swig-foo it rebuilt some (all?) of the foo
>>> bindings, i.e.
>>>
>>> make swig-foo
>>> make check-swig-foo
>>> make check-swig-foo
>>>
>>> built the bindings three times instead of once.
>>
>> Ugh. Yeah... they can't become the default if they don't "stay built" :-P
>
> FWIW, I don't see this problem in my setup (Ubuntu 10.04, x86 platform,
> etc.) I build "in-tree", if you will.
Just checked my out-of-tree build and I no longer see the problem.
--
Philip
Re: bindings in default build?
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 05/24/2011 12:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:21, Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I'll double-check before enabling the bindings build by default. (just
>>> waiting for more feedback now)
>>
>> There was a rebuild issue last time I looked at the swig bindings.
>> Every time I ran make check-swig-foo it rebuilt some (all?) of the foo
>> bindings, i.e.
>>
>> make swig-foo
>> make check-swig-foo
>> make check-swig-foo
>>
>> built the bindings three times instead of once.
>
> Ugh. Yeah... they can't become the default if they don't "stay built" :-P
FWIW, I don't see this problem in my setup (Ubuntu 10.04, x86 platform,
etc.) I build "in-tree", if you will.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: bindings in default build?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:21, Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I'll double-check before enabling the bindings build by default. (just
>> waiting for more feedback now)
>
> There was a rebuild issue last time I looked at the swig bindings.
> Every time I ran make check-swig-foo it rebuilt some (all?) of the foo
> bindings, i.e.
>
> make swig-foo
> make check-swig-foo
> make check-swig-foo
>
> built the bindings three times instead of once.
Ugh. Yeah... they can't become the default if they don't "stay built" :-P
It looks like the trend is towards making them the default, *if* we
can disable them at configure time and (per above) get the build
working as expected.
Cheers,
-g