Re: [libxml++] Ver. 2.6 vs 2.7 installation question

[Christophe de Vienne <cdevienne alphacent com>]

Hi,

Vladislav Grinchenko a écrit :

> [...]
> DISCUSSION:
>
> It seems that as far as pkg-config tool is concerned, the *.pc
> file should have the same name in all 3 cases rather then
>
> case 1 : /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libxml++-1.0.pc
> case 2 : /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libxml++-2.6.pc
> case 3 : /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libxml++-2.6.pc
>
> Is there a problem with the way case 1 packages the files?
> Should then name of PC file be libxml++2.6.pc in all 3 cases?
>  

This allow to have different versions of libxml++ cohexists on the same 
system. The last two (2.6 and 2.7) have the same name because 2.7 API is 
binary compatible with 2.6 API.

> The installation itself is confusing too:
>
> case 1 : /usr/include/libxml++-1.0
> case 2 : /usr/include/libxml++-2.6
> case 3 : /usr/include/libxml++-2.6
>
> case 1 : /usr/lib/libxml++-0.1.so
> case 2 : /usr/lib/libxml++-2.6.so
> case 3 : /usr/lib/libxml++-2.6.so
>
> Looks like there is no version difference between 2.6 and 2.7 ???
> But according to http://libxmlplusplus.sourceforge.net/, 2.6 and 2.7
> have different APIs but they suppose to work just fine with 
> libxml2 >=2.6.1 and glibmm-2.4 >=2.4.0.
>  
2.7 API only add new interfaces to 2.6, and their are (well, at least 
should be) binary compatible.

> BTW, here is the place where I've got RPM from:
> http://dag.wieers.com/packages/libxml++/
>
> And this is THE ONLY place where I could get libxml++ RPMs from.
> I wouldn't mind building my own RPM from a tarball, but for 
> installations without development environment, this is out of
> question. I should be able to point my users to some RPM repository
> with sane properly built libxml++ RPMs.
>  
No official RPM exists. See this thread : 
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=4317457

> Sounds like the RPM is wrong and for all libxml++-2.k.x where k >= 6,
> they all should be identified as libxml++-2.6.pc and should
> all install in $prefix/include/libxml++-2.6 and so forth.
>  
If the problem is related to the RPM, you should see that with the 
person who makes it.


> Conclusively, 'configure.in' should test for:
>
>
> PKG_CHECK_MODULES(XMLCPP, libxml++-2.6 >= 0.26.0)
> AC_SUBST(XMLCPP_CFLAGS)
> AC_SUBST(XMLCPP_LIBS)
>
> The only problem I have with this approach is that it doesn't 
> mirror libxml2's structure itself (but perhaps it shouldn't):
>
>  
I'm not sure to get what you mean here


Regards,

Christophe