<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/5/12 Frank Warmerdam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:warmerdam@pobox.com">warmerdam@pobox.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
I've also got to the point where FWTools CSharp bindings are no longer<br>
being built properly and I don't know why or how to fix it.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Frank,<br><br>Do you have more specific information about the issue above? I'm not aware of any problems when building the recent versions.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
If you flush the bindings out of subversion you will lose the involvement<br>
of some developers.<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br>With regards of SWIG C# we would require to commit 50+ files because of a single change in an interface file which is quite unmaintainable. The python bindings might not suffer from this problem though, but having the binaries in SVN each SWIG maintainers should require to commit the generated stuff of the affected languages as well, so as to keep the things consistent, otherwise those involved developers would only test (and report issues) with some older versions instead of getting the recent fixes when checking out the bindings.<br>
<br>Is that a big requirement for the devs to install SWIG on a particular machine? (I'm not sure about the issues here, the Windows users just download the swigwin package and use it) They also have to have many other stuff (like python, perl, mono, the libraries like geos, xerces etc) for a successful build. Why having the SWIG library is extraordinary among the others? <br>
<br></div></div><br>Best regards,<br><br>Tamas<br><br>