Re: bundling libxml2 / bundling locations

On Thu, 30 May 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > Brad Lafountain wrote: > > > But take ext/domxml it requires a newerversion of libxml2. I didn't have it > > installed on my machine when i installed php. If we bundle say a specfic > > version of libxml2 that domxml depends on, then it won't matter how fast pased > > the development is, ext/domxml won't use it. We can obvisouly peridocially > > upgrade the version that is bundled and you can have an override if you want to > > use a different version that is installed on a system. As xml gets more and > > more popular i feel that domxml will be more and more popular. > > > > "Build outta the box" > > +1 for libxml2 bundle. This already discussed, isn't this? -1 on this, as libxml2 is quite big, it would increase the PHP source by about 60%: File: php-4.2.1.tar.gz 3298 KB 05/13/2002 09:02:00 PM File: libxml2-2.4.17.tar.gz 1861 KB 03/08/2002 12:00:00 AM And I don't think it would be a good idea to bundle it even if it was small. A project like libxml changes so much with releases every two weeks that it would be a hell to keep upgrading the bundled library in order to have the latest version. Derick --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did I help you? http://www.jdimedia.nl/derick/link.php?url=giftlist Frequent ranting: http://www.jdimedia.nl/derick/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PHP: Scripting the Web - derick@php.net All your branches are belong to me! SRM: Script Running Machine - www.vl-srm.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------