Re: bundling libxml2 / bundling locations

On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 02:04, Markus Fischer wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 08:12:27AM +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote : > > Brad Lafountain wrote: > > >Ok, > > > > > > 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 > > It's very actively developed. What is the reason of shared > libraries if we don't use it?! GD is a completely different > story. I even think it's not necessary to bundle > libmysqlclient because it's really installed everywhere where > mysql is available. We bundle mysql for the very same reason Brad wants to bundle libxml2. - Stig