On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 03:30:24PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 16.04.2018 14:29, James McCoy wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:42:31AM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> [Moved from users@]
> >>
> >> On 16.04.2018 10:36, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >>> The problem is that Swig has become a build-time dependency now. We
> >>> don't configure the Swig bindings unless Swig is installed, even if the
> >>> binding sources are already generated — as they are in the release tarballs.
> >>>
> >>> The solution is to install Swig and tell configure about it:
> >>>
> >>> $ sudo pkg install swig30
> >>> $ ./configure --with-swig=/usr/local/bin/swig30 ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This will not cause the Swig sources to be regenerated, but will perform
> >>> the proper configuration to make them compile correctly.
> >>>
> >>> I consider this to be a bug in our build scripts, FWIW.
> >> I tracked this down to r1751167, which is only on trunk and 1.10.x.
> >>
> >> Long story short: it is wrong to require swig in order to configure the
> >> swig bindings. The whole point of putting generated swig wrappers into
> >> the release tarballs is so that users can build them without having to
> >> install swig.
> >>
> >> Defining the symbols SWIG_PY_COMPILE, SWIG_RB_COMPILE, and so on, should
> >> depend on the various scripting languages being installed, not on the
> >> presence of Swig.
> >>
> >> Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this change?
> > I did some searching to see if I could find any discussion that led me
> > to making this change and didn't turn up anything. I assume I was
> > missing the context of the Swig bindings being pre-generated.
> >
> > Maybe we should have some automated testing for the peculiarities of
> > release tarballs to avoid mistakes like this in the future?
>
> We do, it's called release testing,
That's not automated. :) Especially since this is a known peculiarity,
it might be useful to have one bot generate a release tree (assuming our
tooling for that is independent from tagging), uninstall swig, and then
build.
> > Reverted in r1829260.
>
> Ok ... please make a backport proposal for 1.10.x.
Done.
Cheers,
--
James
GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7 2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB
Received on 2018-04-17 01:12:16 CEST