On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmitrij.ledkov@gmail.com">dmitrij.ledkov@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Keep the same svn. With a little bit of auto-foo magic you can<br>
generate two different tarballs and release either of them at their<br>
respective schedules.<br>
<br>
IMHO this should be at least done for the bindings. Because python<br>
bindings autofoo assumes that the libsword is already installed on the<br>
system during build-time. This is very hard to satisfy on buildd /<br>
chroot. On the other hand if bindings were a separate tarball it could<br>
easily build-depend on libsword such that we (as is packagers) create<br>
libsword package first and then create bindings package.<br>
<br>
Maybe I'm wrong. In that case could you please suggest how to build<br>
python bindings when all you have is compiled sword in the current<br>
directory, or you have libsword installed into $DESTDIR eg. in debian<br>
case ./debian/libsword/usr/lib/ and other similar paths.</blockquote><div>IIRC, you can do --with-sword-dir=$DESTDIR. <br><br>As to the case for splitting the bindings off, I'm not sure whether this is wise or not. BPBible will probably sometime ship with its own bindings (that way I can do more efficient BPBible-specific filters)<br>
</div><div><br clear="all">God Bless,<br>Ben<br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Multitudes, multitudes,<br> in the valley of decision!<br>For the day of the LORD is near<br>
in the valley of decision.<br><br>Giôên 3:14 (ESV) <br></div></div>