Re: [xml] Re: The DSO dilemna

[Mike Hommey <mh glandium org>]

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
> environment.
>   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.

Mike