On 2/5/07, David Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Horms wrote:> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 12:10:58PM +0000, David Lee wrote: > > [...] > > For this particular bug, the fundamental question is "is SWIG now > > absolutely compulsory?" If so, then configure should scream to a halt if > > swig is absent. If not, then "lib/mgmt" needs to be able to do something > > useful without swig (or should we even be building "lib/mgmt" in the first > > place?). > > I suspect that this is more of an oversight that anything else. Thanks for that confirmation, Horms. Last week (in addition to a non-trivial "bootstrap myself into mercurial from zero" exercise) I prepared a bugfix to handle the absence of 'swig', with "desirable, but not compulsory" semantics. Alas, my "hg push" crashes in the depths of python. Aaargh! Too many alligators (to change zoology) snapping at my heels. The patch is attached. It also adds checks for a few other dependencies that the ("desirable, but not compulsory") mgmt and quorum daemons would require if they are to build successfully. Could someone check it and apply it, please? Thanks.
lmb appears to have applied it _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
