I am also okay with removing the files. I think removing the generated
files will help the project's health.
At Google, we have used the swig generated files from git for the python
interfaces. It was helpful as we don't have a lot of control about which
swig version is available. However, it's
Folks,
At one time we were very sensitive to the exact version of SWIG so
providing pre-generated bindings removed a large class of versioning
problems.
I am ok with removing them.
Best regards,
Frank
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:14 PM Even Rouault
wrote:
>
> > To play devil's advocate, were
To play devil's advocate, were there any (perceived) benefits to this
arrangement when originally introduced, other than not needing the
SWIG binary to compile Python bindings?
That predates the start of my involvement with GDAL, so my guess would
be that this was just what you mention: for
Hi Even,
This sounds a sensible change, for the reasons outlined in your first
paragraph. When first making contributions, I think I was caught out
by this arrangement in just about all of the ways you mention!
To play devil's advocate, were there any (perceived) benefits to this
arrangement
Hi,
take this email as a mini-RFC regarding the changes in
https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/7390 which remove the SWIG python
generated files from git master, and thus make the SWIG binary a
requirement to build the Python bindings.
Below, the text of the PR:
This removes a long-time
