Re: Statistics::PCA and friends
- To: debian-med@lists.debian.org
- Cc: debian-med@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Statistics::PCA and friends
- From: merkys@debian.org
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:20:01 +0300
- Message-id: <[🔎] ce6668ab-61bd-1dca-2085-b5fba54ef499@gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <20200527184315.GA3845310@fusion>
- References: <20200520203537.GB3069578@fusion> <20200521040011.GQ12054@an3as.eu> <20200521171223.GA3188991@fusion> <20200522161607.GA6867@jadzia.comodo.priv.at> <20200523104001.GA3323665@fusion> <20200523114800.GE6867@jadzia.comodo.priv.at> <20200523120449.GA3323958@fusion> <20200523122012.GG6867@jadzia.comodo.priv.at> <20200526175803.GA3709102@fusion> <2040314f-8e47-82e7-e391-7aa5a1770148@gmail.com> <20200527184315.GA3845310@fusion>
Hi Étienne,
On 2020-05-27 21:43, Étienne Mollier wrote:
> Following your recommendation in the other thread, I opened a
> branch swig-dedup, to assess if such task would be feasible.
> The branch already has a commit with a swig call, a few options
> maybe deemed minimum, and proper build dependencies. I may have
> a look back at this stub probably not this evening, but in the
> future maybe.
Thanks for opening the branch. I confirm that rebuilding the bindings
with swig is not trivial in this case. You were right that there must
have been manual additions to the swig-generated code. Let's leave it
like this for now.
Best wishes,
Andrius
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Reply to: