Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Re: swig for 1.10.0
To: Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk>
Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
References: <1499729890.2867381.1036646696.54529F45@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <20170711054842.GE1913@jessup.stsp.name>
 <9d50307c-6878-82a5-9aac-bb936f8e0e93@apache.org>
 <87tw2jtiaw.fsf@codematters.co.uk>
From: Julian Foad <julianfoad@apache.org>
Message-ID: <5d1bbcaa-1dc7-da18-1df1-82634187a536@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:05:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87tw2jtiaw.fsf@codematters.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:05:19 -0000

Philip Martin wrote:
> Julian Foad <julianfoad@apache.org> 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 
SWIG"):
     /usr/bin/swig -> swig3.0
   package "swig3.0":
     /usr/bin/swig3.0

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

swig 2 and 3 together was installed as:
   package "swig2.0":
     /usr/bin/swig -> swig2.0
     /usr/bin/swig2.0
   package "swig3.0":
     /usr/bin/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.