On Saturday 14 December 2013 09:39:27 John Ralls wrote: > On Dec 14, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Geert Janssens <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Saturday 14 December 2013 12:08:17 Geert Janssens wrote: > >> On Saturday 14 December 2013 10:30:14 Cristian Marchi wrote: > >>> Ubuntu 13.04 > >>> SWIG Version 2.0.7 > >>> Compiled with g++ [x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu] > >>> Configured options: +pcre > >>> > >>> I think I need 2.0.10 right? > >> > >> That is: my patch applies only to code generated by 2.0.10 or more > >> recent. Until now GnuCash only required swig 2.0.10 if compiled > >> with > >> guile 2. > >> > >> I didn't consider the option of building gnucash with guile 1.8 and > >> an older version of swig. There is a tiny chance that this patch > >> is not needed either for guile 1.8. So in that case I can simply > >> skip the patch application when building with guile 1.8. If it is > >> mandatory in both cases, I may have to create two patches, one > >> that applies to old swig generated code and one that applies to > >> new swig generated code. > >> > >> I'll check and report back. > > > > It turns out the patch is only necessary for guile 2. I had already > > learned from the guile developers that the string handling changed > > radically between guile 1.8 and 2.0. This was one of the side > > effects. > > > > I have committed r23559 to make sure the swig patch is only applied > > when building with guile 2. In that situation we require swig > > 2.0.10 anyway. > > > > Or more precisely we should require it. I have also committed r23560 > > to improve the swig check to test for 2.0.10 when configure detects > > guile 2. So that should now be covered as well. > Good, and just in time! > > Anyone else have any changes before I make the 2.9.A (think > hexadecimally ;-) ) tarballs? > > Regards, > John Ralls
I'm done for today... Geert _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
