On Tue, Aug 16, 2005, Christoph Schug wrote: > [...] > BTW for similar reasons I'm not too happy abount pining Swig to a > certain version. While this solution works now it doesn't scale. What if > there's another package requiring a different version of Swig? IMHO it's > better to add outdated software versions to the packages which require > them (keep the swig package up to date; include old swig version into > subversion package).
Yes, fully agreed. At last if we have another package which requires SWIG we _have_ to include this older SWIG version directly into Subversion. > > I've backed out this part of your patch now as the local copy contained > > in the Subversion 1.2.1 tarball is already sufficient. > > Could we MFC my remaining changes to fix 2.4 relase? Yes, I will MFC it. > > Additionally, > > I've now removed the NEON installation files, as I don't see why > > Subversion needs them under its run-time. > > I wasn't sure about this one so I decided to keep them. Honestly, I > don't have any experience with this python stuff and haven't had time > last week to test it with some software that uses it. I've spoken about NEON's installation files. This is totally Python independent. It's installation files are just C API includes and a library. > In the meantime I > packaged Trac (http://www.edgewall.com/trac/), maybe I have some time > next few days to play around with it. I'll commit the packaged if it > works. Cool. I'm keen on trying out this. Ralf S. Engelschall [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.engelschall.com ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org
