Hello Brad King,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 06:12:24PM -0500, Brad King wrote: > Gavin Baker wrote: > > So I guess the question becomes: is the source for > >GCC_XML included with CableSwig patched at all from the original, or can > >we just use the upstream sources as is? > > The GCC_XML tree inside CableSwig is actually a symlink on the cvs > server to the native GCC-XML repository. The two GCC-XML versions are > identical. Any CableSwig branches are also in the GCC-XML repository. > There are no changes on any CableSwig branches (really ITK branches) to > my knowledge. > > However, the GCC-XML package version may not match that on the CableSwig > branch of GCC-XML corresponding to the CableSwig package version. The > version dependency is very weak though so you should be okay, at least > with the current versions. > > If you want to be sure, I suggest you package GCC-XML with the version > number from the date the ITK 2.4 branch was made, which is 2005-11-29. > Therefore the GCC-XML version number should be something like > 0.7.20051129. Note that odd minor versions of GCC-XML are development > versions so the patch level is just the date. I want to be clear on the versioning. I built from a CVS snapshot as of 2006-01-21 for GCC 4 support as per http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/gccxml/2005-October/000681.html The resulting binary reports itself as "2.7.0" (gccxml --copyright) presumably from the file gxConfigure.h which contains: #define GCCXML_VERSION "0.7" #define GCCXML_VERSION_FULL "0.7.0" #define GCCXML_VERSION_MAJOR 0 #define GCCXML_VERSION_MINOR 7 #define GCCXML_VERSION_PATCH 0 Is your suggestion that I edit gxConfigure.h and change the patch value to be the date (e.g. 20060121)? Thanks, -Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
