Then we can just require 3.0.3 when Python 3 is found otherwise 3.0.2.
This is already implemented in CMakeLists.txt.

So it remains that I verify that pull request 211 (class enums) runs
with 3.0.2 and Johannes gets it to buildbots afterwards.

Jan


On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 21:49:38 +0100
Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote:

> No checks. Just that it wont work for SWIG < 3.0.3.
> 
> J
> 
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Johan Hake <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > The real difference is that we need 3.0.3 to support PY3.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but do we need any checks/boilerplate in the SWIG wrappers for
> > 3.0.2 and 3.0.3, or is it just that PY3 will 'work' if one has SWIG
> > 3.0.3?
> >
> > Garth
> >
> > > Johan
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I don't really mind either way between 3.0.2 and 3.0.3. I'm all
> > >> for minimising developer effort, so if there's no real
> > >> difference in that respect let's go with 3.0.2. Otherwise, let's
> > >> require 3.0.3.
> > >>
> > >> Garth
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Johan Hake <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Ahh, yes I missed that. Then it boils down to support PY3 or be
> > >> > convenient
> > >> > for ubuntu users.
> > >> >
> > >> > Johan
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Jan Blechta <
> > [email protected]>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> No, 3.0.x is needed by
> > >> >> https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/dolfin/pull-request/211
> > >> >> even
> > with
> > >> >> Python 2.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Jan
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 20:48:56 +0100
> > >> >> Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > No point to go with 3.0.2. Then we can keep it at 2.0.11 as
> > >> >> > 3.0.2 wont work with PY3.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Johan
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Jan Blechta
> > >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 20:37:11 +0100
> > >> >> > > Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > We need 3.0.3 for the patch allowing correct
> > >> >> > > > representation of single file import when using
> > >> >> > > > relative import for PY3. Should
> > we
> > >> >> > > > have different required versions for PY2 and PY3?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > I don't care. Johannes suggested 3.0.2 because of its
> > availability
> > >> >> > > in Ubuntu repos.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Jan
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Johan
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Jan Blechta
> > >> >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:07:48 +0100
> > >> >> > > > > Johannes Ring <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Jan Blechta
> > >> >> > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > Does everybody agree to bump required SWIG
> > >> >> > > > > > > version to
> > 3.0.3
> > >> >> > > > > > > which is out since the new year's eve?
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > How about bumping to 3.0.2? That is the version in
> > >> >> > > > > > Ubuntu 14.10 and the upcoming 15.04 release.
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > I'll test whether
> > >> >> > > > > https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/dolfin/pull-request/211
> > >> >> > > > > works with 3.0.2.
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Johan, Martin, do you remember why we already require
> > >> >> > > > > 3.0.3 with Python 3?
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Jan
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Johannes
> > >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> > > > > > fenics mailing list
> > >> >> > > > > > [email protected]
> > >> >> > > > > > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > fenics mailing list
> > >> > [email protected]
> > >> > http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
> > >> >
> > >
> > >
> >

_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics

Reply via email to