You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by James McCoy <ja...@debian.org> on 2015/11/01 07:17:56 UTC

Re: svn commit: r1690591 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/include/proxy.swg

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:00:17AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:41:23AM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > https://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc/builds/317
> > 
> > Apparently this breaks older versions of Swig ...
> 
> Ah, ugh... yes I should have realised this.  Sorry.
> 
> I think the choices are:
> 
> a) keep comments in that code & use {}, only support SWIG < 3.0
> b) keep comments & use %{/%}, only support SWIG > 3.0.5
> c) drop the comments from that code, support SWIG < 3.0 && > 3.0.5
> 
> I'm guessing (c) is preferred?

Was there a resolution to this?  Debian recently switch to the 3.0
series of swig by default, which broke the subversion build due to the
requirement of < 3.0 swig.

I can work around this for now by explicitly using the 2.0 series of
swig, but that's being considered for removal from Debian before the
next stable release.

Cheers,
-- 
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <ja...@debian.org>

Re: Swig 3.x support (was Re: svn commit: r1690591 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/include/proxy.swg)

Posted by James McCoy <ja...@jamessan.com>.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:45:03PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 22.12.2015 04:26, James McCoy wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 01:17:56AM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:00:17AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:41:23AM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >>>> https://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc/builds/317
> >>>>
> >>>> Apparently this breaks older versions of Swig ...
> >>> Ah, ugh... yes I should have realised this.  Sorry.
> >>>
> >>> I think the choices are:
> >>>
> >>> a) keep comments in that code & use {}, only support SWIG < 3.0
> >>> b) keep comments & use %{/%}, only support SWIG > 3.0.5
> >>> c) drop the comments from that code, support SWIG < 3.0 && > 3.0.5
> >>>
> >>> I'm guessing (c) is preferred?
> > It seems like using %{/%} and adding SWIG >= 3.0.6 as supported versions
> > should work.  I re-applied r1690591 along with Joe's proposed patch for
> > SWIG version checking and was able to build with both swig 2.0.7 & swig
> > 3.0.7.
> >
> > The revert of r1690591 mentioned that older SWIG versions didn't work,
> > but the CI build log isn't available anymore.  What was the problem and
> > what was the SWIG versions?
> 
> IIRC, anything newer than 3.0.2 would fail no matter what I did.

In r1721488 I committed what I described above.  It's worked in my
testing.  If there is fallout from the CI builds, I'll take a look at
it.

Cheers,
-- 
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <ja...@jamessan.com>

Re: Swig 3.x support (was Re: svn commit: r1690591 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/include/proxy.swg)

Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 22.12.2015 04:26, James McCoy wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 01:17:56AM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:00:17AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:41:23AM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>> https://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc/builds/317
>>>>
>>>> Apparently this breaks older versions of Swig ...
>>> Ah, ugh... yes I should have realised this.  Sorry.
>>>
>>> I think the choices are:
>>>
>>> a) keep comments in that code & use {}, only support SWIG < 3.0
>>> b) keep comments & use %{/%}, only support SWIG > 3.0.5
>>> c) drop the comments from that code, support SWIG < 3.0 && > 3.0.5
>>>
>>> I'm guessing (c) is preferred?
> It seems like using %{/%} and adding SWIG >= 3.0.6 as supported versions
> should work.  I re-applied r1690591 along with Joe's proposed patch for
> SWIG version checking and was able to build with both swig 2.0.7 & swig
> 3.0.7.
>
> The revert of r1690591 mentioned that older SWIG versions didn't work,
> but the CI build log isn't available anymore.  What was the problem and
> what was the SWIG versions?

IIRC, anything newer than 3.0.2 would fail no matter what I did.

-- Brane

Swig 3.x support (was Re: svn commit: r1690591 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/include/proxy.swg)

Posted by James McCoy <ja...@jamessan.com>.
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 01:17:56AM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:00:17AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:41:23AM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > https://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc/builds/317
> > > 
> > > Apparently this breaks older versions of Swig ...
> > 
> > Ah, ugh... yes I should have realised this.  Sorry.
> > 
> > I think the choices are:
> > 
> > a) keep comments in that code & use {}, only support SWIG < 3.0
> > b) keep comments & use %{/%}, only support SWIG > 3.0.5
> > c) drop the comments from that code, support SWIG < 3.0 && > 3.0.5
> > 
> > I'm guessing (c) is preferred?

It seems like using %{/%} and adding SWIG >= 3.0.6 as supported versions
should work.  I re-applied r1690591 along with Joe's proposed patch for
SWIG version checking and was able to build with both swig 2.0.7 & swig
3.0.7.

The revert of r1690591 mentioned that older SWIG versions didn't work,
but the CI build log isn't available anymore.  What was the problem and
what was the SWIG versions?

Cheers,
-- 
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <ja...@jamessan.com>