r23556-23557

[Geert Janssens]

On Saturday 14 December 2013 09:39:27 John Ralls wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:
> > On Saturday 14 December 2013 12:08:17 Geert Janssens wrote:
> >> On Saturday 14 December 2013 10:30:14 Cristian Marchi wrote:
> >>> Ubuntu 13.04
> >>> SWIG Version 2.0.7
> >>> Compiled with g++ [x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu]
> >>> Configured options: +pcre
> >>> 
> >>> I think I need 2.0.10 right?
> >> 
> >> That is: my patch applies only to code generated by 2.0.10 or more
> >> recent. Until now GnuCash only required swig 2.0.10 if compiled
> >> with
> >> guile 2.
> >> 
> >> I didn't consider the option of building gnucash with guile 1.8 and
> >> an older version of swig. There is a tiny chance that this patch
> >> is not needed either for guile 1.8. So in that case I can simply
> >> skip the patch application when building with guile 1.8. If it is
> >> mandatory in both cases, I may have to create two patches, one
> >> that applies to old swig generated code and one that applies to
> >> new swig generated code.
> >> 
> >> I'll check and report back.
> > 
> > It turns out the patch is only necessary for guile 2. I had already
> > learned from the guile developers that the string handling changed
> > radically between guile 1.8 and 2.0. This was one of the side
> > effects.
> > 
> > I have committed r23559 to make sure the swig patch is only applied
> > when building with guile 2. In that situation we require swig
> > 2.0.10 anyway.
> > 
> > Or more precisely we should require it. I have also committed r23560
> > to improve the swig check to test for 2.0.10 when configure detects
> > guile 2. So that should now be covered as well.
> Good, and just in time!
> 
> Anyone else have any changes before I make the 2.9.A (think
> hexadecimally ;-) ) tarballs?
> 
> Regards,
> John Ralls

I'm done for today...

Geert