On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 01:01:37AM +0200, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 06:28:12PM -0400, Stuart Cassoff wrote: > > Now that you're in there, why not bring swig up to the latest? > > > > I posted a diff for a swig-wip a while back and looking at it now, > > it doesn't seem too hard to upgrade. I do remember being confused > > about boost and that maybe swig will find and use things if > > installed, even if --without-things is used. > > I guessed that exists a good reason for the outdated port, so I only > added the line with the option. > > I've been reading the changes of the last four years and working in > the update this afternoon. The update isn't so easy, 68 packages > depends of swig and I've seen at least 4 patches related to swig. > > Also I'm explicitely disabling the most of the languages (except the > enabled in 1.3.6). I don't like the magic of "configure" for this > package. If someone wants enable some language, he or she needs add > the necessary stuff to the Makefile (modules, *_depends, etc). I may > be wrong, but I think that dpb will generate different packages with > each bulk build if we rely on the magic of "configure", eg: if dpb is > compiling swig and packageY (that depends of languageZ) at the same > time, swig will enable the support for languageZ because the package > is installed in the build machine. > > I can't do a bulk build for to test the packages that depends of swig, > but I'll review the makefiles for to see the languages necessary. I'll > send you the patch the next week :)
I was a bit wrong. The dependencies are only necessary for the tests and examples, not for compile the package or to use this from other languages. Don't blame me, I haven't used swig before of today :) -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
