Frank,
SWIG 1.3.39 is ok for Perl bindings. However, it introduces (I
previously used 1.3.36) a warning (125) that is related to
SWIGmake.base, which can be removed by defining the complete path to the
interface file in the swig command line. I committed the fix.
Ari
Frank Warmerdam kirjoi
Rouault
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 1:22 PM
To: Frank Warmerdam
Cc: gdal-dev
Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] SWIG Version
I've been using SWIG 1.3.39 for Java bindings for a few months now, and
it's working fine.
Frank Warmerdam a écrit :
Folks - particularly swig bindings maintainer
; From: gdal-dev-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:gdal-dev-
> boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Even Rouault
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 1:22 PM
> To: Frank Warmerdam
> Cc: gdal-dev
> Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] SWIG Version
>
> I've been using SWIG 1.3.39 for Java bi
Frank Warmerdam
Cc: gdal-dev
Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] SWIG Version
On Dec 6, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>
> Is SWIG 1.3.39 acceptable for all bindings maintainers?
1.3.39 as our default moving forward would be fine for the Python bindings.
IIRC, 1.3.40 isn't a good release
I've been using SWIG 1.3.39 for Java bindings for a few months now, and
it's working fine.
Frank Warmerdam a écrit :
Folks - particularly swig bindings maintainers,
I have regenerated the swig bindings for python with swig 1.3.39 on
www.gdal.org and committed them. I used that version to be c
1.3.39 should be fine with the c# bindings as well.
I'm using this version for my regular builds since 2009 05.
Best regards,
Tamas
2009/12/6 Frank Warmerdam
> Folks - particularly swig bindings maintainers,
>
> I have regenerated the swig bindings for python with swig 1.3.39 on
> www.gdal.o
On Dec 6, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>
> Is SWIG 1.3.39 acceptable for all bindings maintainers?
1.3.39 as our default moving forward would be fine for the Python bindings.
IIRC, 1.3.40 isn't a good release (for some reason, swig releases are like wine
vintages).
Howard
