2009/6/10 Greg Hellings <greg.helli...@gmail.com>: > > I know the question has been raised before about separating utilities > from the library but nothing has ever shaken out of it. To me, this > again makes sense in this category. If the utilities were placed into > their own SVN repository they could easily be released on their own > schedule with their own requirements. An svn:externals could force > the source to be included with an SVN checkout of the library, but > could allow the utilities to be conceptually "operated" as a set of > highly specialized front-ends (which is really what they are) for the > library and released on their own schedule. > > --Greg >
Keep the same svn. With a little bit of auto-foo magic you can generate two different tarballs and release either of them at their respective schedules. IMHO this should be at least done for the bindings. Because python bindings autofoo assumes that the libsword is already installed on the system during build-time. This is very hard to satisfy on buildd / chroot. On the other hand if bindings were a separate tarball it could easily build-depend on libsword such that we (as is packagers) create libsword package first and then create bindings package. Maybe I'm wrong. In that case could you please suggest how to build python bindings when all you have is compiled sword in the current directory, or you have libsword installed into $DESTDIR eg. in debian case ./debian/libsword/usr/lib/ and other similar paths. -- With best regards Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima), Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
