From: Matthew O'M. <mat...@gm...> - 2008-07-30 19:30:05
|
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:08 PM, William S Fulton <ws...@fu...>wrote: > Matthew O'Meara wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I have been using swig for a project and I am enjoying it very much. >> >> To make the distribution of my project easier for users, I would like to >> bundle a source distribution of Swig. Since I know I will only be >> building Python bindings, I feel like passing along support for all the >> other languages is not necessary. >> >> Does anyone know if there already exists a distribution of Swig with >> just python support? >> >> I've looked into modifying the configure file and Makefile.in files, but >> as I am only a Makefile blue-belt I am not confident that I am going to >> mess things up. >> >> Maybe if someone familiar with the build system can give me some >> pointers on ways I can cut down the size of the distribution, I would be >> much appreciative. >> >> I've only ever heard of standard SWIG distributions. The autoconf > detection of different languages does not affect the SWIG executable build > at all. It only affects what will get tested with 'make check'. If you want > to cut down the distribution size, modify what the 'install' target installs > and remove the language modules from the compilation in the Source/Modules > directory. Also consider shipping the code that SWIG generates so that users > don't need to run swig. > > William > Thanks Will for your reply, I guess I had considered the code that SWIG generates to be system dependent, but now that I think about it, it probably will be pretty generic. Certainly, if I can pre-compile the bindings this will be /much/ less overhead than all including all of SWIG in the release. Best, Matt |