Ben Reser wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:28:09PM -0700, Ben Reser wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:05:11PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>
http://mailman.cs.uchicago.edu/pipermail/swig-dev/2003-November/012288.html
>>>
>>> says:
>>>
>>>> Proposal:
>>>> ---------
>>> ...
>>>> 7. The Runtime directory
>>>>
>>>> The current Runtime directory, libtool, and all associated files
>>>> will be deleted and no longer used.
>>>
>>> This proposal seems to have been well-received.
>>
>> This is probably a good thing. The number one problem people have
>> installing SWIG bindings is runtime version mismatches. This would
>> avoid that problem entirely.
>
> Actually this is already implemented:
> http://www.swig.org/Doc1.3/Modules.html
Most of it, but not parts 4, 5, or 7. Part 7 is the part Max quoted and the
part
relevent to what I was saying before.
> clkao has pointed out that our current Perl bindings fail when trying
> to install against multiple versions of Perl on the same machine.
> Linking the runtime into the _Core.so ought to help eliminate that.
Linking the runtime into the core module sounds like a pretty good idea
since the runtime code is actually in there already, we'd just have to drop
the -noruntime parameter to swig to enable it. I don't know why I never
thought of that before...
But just to be clear, we had been talking about linking the runtime into
libsvn_swig_perl-1.la, not _Core.so, which wouldn't help with multiple
versions of perl.
- Russ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jul 10 16:18:22 2004