[GRASS-dev] GRASS 6.3.0

William Kyngesburye woklist at kyngchaos.com
Sat Mar 22 11:22:00 EDT 2008

Understood, that intermediate files need to rebuilt as developers make  

But we should try to include them in releases.  That was my main  
point.  Hopefully it's something that could be automated.

On Mar 22, 2008, at 2:25 AM, Glynn Clements wrote:

>> Even if we include the file as a convenience, the Makefile should
>> still have the appropriate dependency information so that any changes
>> to the .i files are handled correctly.
> However, this is complicated by the fact that grass6_wxvdigit.i isn't
> stored in SVN, so that file gets generated, then
> grass6_wxvdigit_wrap.cpp gets regenerated from that, which may make it
> out of sync with the SVN version. Also, there's no guarantee that the
> local timestamps (which indicate when the files were checked out)
> accurately reflect the relationships between the files.
> If the SWIG issues are considered problematic for end users (who build
> from source), it may be worth considering including the SWIG-generated
> files in source tarballs.
> Note that you already need SWIG if you want to build the wrappers for
> the GRASS libraries (i.e. if you want to call GRASS functions directly
> from Python). I would expect this to be an issue sooner or later (I
> had assumed that vdigit was already doing this, but it turns out that
> only the C part calls GRASS directly).
> -- 
> Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>

William Kyngesburye <kyngchaos*at*kyngchaos*dot*com>

"Oh, look, I seem to have fallen down a deep, dark hole.  Now what  
does that remind me of?  Ah, yes - life."

- Marvin

More information about the grass-dev mailing list