Philip Martin wrote:
> Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_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.
Received on 2017-07-11 12:05:19 CEST