[sword-devel] How broadly do we define "API" (was: Re: which engine sources to use )

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

2009/6/10 Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com>:
>
> I know the question has been raised before about separating utilities
> from the library but nothing has ever shaken out of it.  To me, this
> again makes sense in this category.  If the utilities were placed into
> their own SVN repository they could easily be released on their own
> schedule with their own requirements.  An svn:externals could force
> the source to be included with an SVN checkout of the library, but
> could allow the utilities to be conceptually "operated" as a set of
> highly specialized front-ends (which is really what they are) for the
> library and released on their own schedule.
>
> --Greg
>

Keep the same svn. With a little bit of auto-foo magic you can
generate two different tarballs and release either of them at their
respective schedules.

IMHO this should be at least done for the bindings. Because python
bindings autofoo assumes that the libsword is already installed on the
system during build-time. This is very hard to satisfy on buildd /
chroot. On the other hand if bindings were a separate tarball it could
easily build-depend on libsword such that we (as is packagers) create
libsword package first and then create bindings package.

Maybe I'm wrong. In that case could you please suggest how to build
python bindings when all you have is compiled sword in the current
directory, or you have libsword installed into $DESTDIR eg. in debian
case ./debian/libsword/usr/lib/ and other similar paths.

-- 
With best regards


Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima),
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич