X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-50.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Need swig 1.3.40 for Subversion
From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
To: cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <4C226B7D.7090500@acm.org>
References: <4C1FD3E8 DOT 50308 AT acm DOT org> <1277260203 DOT 5496 DOT 36 DOT camel AT YAAKOV04>	 <4C224A9C DOT 3050500 AT acm DOT org> <1277323561 DOT 5452 DOT 81 DOT camel AT YAAKOV04>	 <4C226B7D DOT 7090500 AT acm DOT org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:35:10 -0500
Message-ID: <1277325310.5452.102.camel@YAAKOV04>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 13:15 -0700, David Rothenberger wrote:
> Can they both be installed in parallel, maybe using alternatives to
> switch between them? I ask because the subversion configure says this:
> 
> WARNING: Subversion requires 1.3.24 or later, and is known to work
> WARNING: with versions up to 1.3.36

The SWIG datadir is already versioned, so if you would version the EXEs
then you could *theoretically* have more than one version at a time.  In
practice, though, I doubt it would work, as many packages just call
"swig" without leaving an easy way to override the executable name.

> I'm not optimistic that they'll move to swig 2 anytime soon. :)

I'm not sure that 2.0.0 is as much of a jump from 1.3.40 as the version
numbers would lead one to believe.  For instance, Gentoo[1] hasn't
hard-masked or SLOTted 2.0.0, one or both of which they would have done
if it was really that much different from 1.3.40.


Yaakov

[1] http://packages.gentoo.org/package/dev-lang/swig



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple