Python and SWIG support in ports?

[Craig Rodrigues]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Kubilay Kocak <koobs at freebsd.org> wrote:

> The correct thing to do is be PEP-394'ish compatible (even though swig
> itself isnt a python package). Again swig20 is a short term solution.
>
>
I have no idea why you refered to PEP394.



> The root cause is technically an inadequate 'find the binary file name'
> method.
>

Probably, but pushing a change upstream to Python distutils just to appease
FreeBSD
might be hard.  Unless you want to patch the distutils in all our our
Python ports.



>
> We do want to keep/allow concurrent swig install support if they don't
> already CONFLICT_INSTALL
>

Why?
swig isn't used a lot.  It is inconvenient, but not a big deal to
install/uninstall different swig versions.

--
Craig