Re: Cableswig package
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 09:14:25PM +1100, Gavin Baker wrote:
> My plan is to take the latest gccxml and cableswig and get the ITK
> bindings built properly for Python and Tcl. The regular package builds
> just great, so I'm wondering if it would be better to just get the C++
> libraries out there now as a release (or at least into incoming), then
> make another update with bindings added?
It depends on whether you think waiting to properly package the python
and tcl bindings will cause undue delay. I'm not sure how much work
remains in that respect.
One thing that I do think is necessary to iron out before any upload
is the shared library versioning. As you know, I sent an email to itk
developer's list. I got no response, which likely means it was too
vague. I will send them a more specific message to propose following
the VTK model as I outlined previously (where SOVERSION is
${major}.${minor}).
> I obtained v0.6.0 of gccxml from your p.d.o site, but didn't find the
> aforementioned 0.7.0+cvs there or on debian.org. Can you let me know
> when it's up?
OK. I just updated http://people.debian.org/~smr -- it now has gccxml 0.7.0+cvs
and cableswig 0.1.0+cvs.
To answer your question about cableswig version: that comes right out of
cableswig's CMakeLists.txt:
SET(CableSwig_VERSION_MAJOR 0)
SET(CableSwig_VERSION_MINOR 1)
SET(CableSwig_VERSION_PATCH 0)
Regards,
-Steve
Reply to: