subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Foad <>
Subject Re: swig for 1.10.0
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:05:02 GMT
Philip Martin wrote:
> Julian Foad <> writes:
>> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> How far widespread is swig 3.0? It is not in OpenBSD ports yet, but perhaps
>>> those lack behind?
> The recent Debian stable release only has swig 3.
>> Now when I install swig 2 as well as 3, trunk 'configure' picks up
>> swig 2, and build and test still works (just trying the swig-rb
>> bindings). I also checked it still works with only swig 2 installed,
>> "just for good measure".
> swig.m4 simply looks for swig in PATH, so I assume that swig on your
> system is swig 2.  Your system has been setup to give priority to swig
> 2 when both are installed.
>> I suggest we change 'configure' to pick up the later version when
>> multiple versions are installed.
> I don't agree.  Your system is setup to "prefer" swig 2, we should
> respect that preference until we can identify failures caused by swig 2.

You are right. I looked closer. ("a dependency package providing the 
stable version of SWIG", which I installed along with installs 
/usr/bin/swig as symlink to swig3.0.

swig 3 (alone) was installed as:
   package "swig" ("a dependency package providing the stable version of 
     /usr/bin/swig -> swig3.0
   package "swig3.0":

swig 2 (alone) was installed as:
   package "swig2.0":
     /usr/bin/swig -> swig2.0

swig 2 and 3 together was installed as:
   package "swig2.0":
     /usr/bin/swig -> swig2.0
   package "swig3.0":
   (and not the plain "swig" package, as it conflicts with "swig2.0")

I agree we should use plain "swig", thus respecting the preference 
expressed by the installed packages.

- Julian

> The generated files in the release tarball are different, I think we
> should use a swig 3 release there unless we can identfy failures caused
> by swig 3.

View raw message