On Wed, 30 Dec 2020, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020/12/29 23:45, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 07:40:41PM -0500, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> > > Here's an update for swig that I've been running with for some time. It
> > > will likely benefit from going through a bulk.
> >
> > I've just kicked off a sparc64 bulk build with this swig update in it.
> > Builds are taking a bit over 3 days currently. (So someone with an amd64
> > cluster may beat me to results if they try).
>
> cvs2svn does not really seem maintained any more, and it doesn't seem
> worth the trouble of maintaining multiple versions of swig (and making
> devel/subversion even more fiddly than it already is). If anything
> comes of https://github.com/mhagger/cvs2svn/issues/9 we can always
> bring it back again later.
>
Thanks for testing Stuart and Kurt. Hopefully this was the only breakage
from the swig update? If so that's pretty good news.
The funny thing is I do use cvs2svn but haven't fired it up for a few
months, but I'd like to keep it in the repo. Can we mark it as BROKEN
instead?
I've actually been thinking of having a go at getting cvs2svn updated to
work under python3. I'll contact mhagger if I make progress on this.
Mainly for the cvs2git functionality, not so much for the svn
functionality (at least for me).
Funnily enough, trying to make some changes to cvs2svn is what inspired me
to learn Python many years ago...
No comments:
Post a Comment