Takahiro Kambe <taca%back-street.net@localhost> writes: > In message <rmik3yn5y73.fsf%fnord.ir.bbn.com@localhost> > on Sun, 01 Jul 2012 10:54:24 -0400, > Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote: >> I have an update for swig to 1.3.40 (from 1.3.36) ready to go. This has >> not been touched in years. 1.3.37 had a regression, fixed in .38, and I >> had asked people to be careful updating due to gnuradio. > I've also tested 1.3.40, 1.3.37 and 1.3.38. > > As for x11/ruby-wxruby, 1.3.38 is happy with both ruby18 and ruby193. > But 1.3.40 had some problem AFAIR. So, I agree to update to 1.3.38 > but not 1.3.40. We can go to 1.3.38 first. But is there a future in ruby-wxruby, in terms of a live upstream that deals with swig usptream? > Anyway, what about GNU radio? I don't know. But it's been so long that it's no longer reasonable to hold off updating. > Quote from devel/swig/Makefile: > > # > # 1.3.37 has a bug where .py files are written to the directory of the > # .i file instead of where the output is supposed to go, and this > # breaks gnuradio. Please try to contact gdt%netbsd.org@localhost before > # updating to 1.3.37. See message on discuss-gnuradio: > # Message-Id: <FA0E4567-C660-4C30-B604-2FA000330874%alum.mit.edu@localhost> I know - I wrote that :-) > # x11/ruby-wxruby-2.0.1 requires 1.3.32 for Ruby 1.8 and 1.3.37 for > # Ruby 1.9. And SWIG 1.3.39 introduced some incompatibility with > # wxRuby, sigh. > >> At this point I think it's time to update, and sort out whatever needs >> sorting, so my plan is to commit an update to 1.3.40 (which was just >> version and PLIST changes) soon, and then at some point to update to >> 2.0.x, which may be harder. > I have devel/swig2 package localy. What softwae would need swig 2.x? I don't know, but as I understand it swig upstream is done with 1.3, so the question is rather what's the harm in updating the swig package to 2? Or does swig upstream consider them so different that both should be available? Does wxruby work with swig2?
Description: PGP signature