Re: [xml] Re: The DSO dilemna

On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 04:12:06AM -0500, Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com> wrote:
  This is the most controversial point. It is clean in the sense that
if available on the platform we benefit from the update. But I'm afraid it
will be a mess on exotic platforms, and even on linux. For example right
now it's provided by libtool on my installation. But libtool is part of the
developpement environment not of the runtime platform. So if I ship libxml2
compiled that way, it will require to install libttool on target boxes which
should not have development tools. 

Your distro suck, then ;)
More seriously, libldtl is supposed to be runtime, not development, and
could be used by a lot of projects some day... (dreaming)
Not putting it in a separate package is a mistake from your distro.

  We can make this a configuration flag or option, --with-sys-ldtl ...
which if activated will try to do what you suggest and if not found or
not activated will fallback to a locally modified copy. This is very
similar to the current approach taken for the trio library. Except I will
be very tempted to use the local copy even on Linux. The point being that
if for some reason we don't embed the latest version users still have the
option to use their version they know work for them in their specific
  I'm fine doing the mess of embedding the local copy and adding the special
configure option if you provide the configure lookup and the ldtl based version.
And if we can't pass the flags to xmlModuleOpen then too bad but it should
not stop us from trying that approach.

IIRC, the embedding a local copy and adding a special configure option
thing is described in libtool info pages.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]