Re: libxml bundling

At 13:12 31/05/2002 -0700, brad lafountain wrote:

Ok, I think we are split in two about what to do here. Ill try and list the different ideas that have been proposed. 1) don't include at all pros: No need to worry about auto install or filesize. cons: Forces people to install themselves.

I just want to mention one of the more important reasons why I think it's a good idea to include it in the tree. It means that PHP itself and its extensions can rely on having the C API present and can add XML functionality in various places. Andi

2) trim down libxml and put in cvs pros: Build outta the box. Makes php to build without having to download extra libaries for highly used extension like domxml. Since domxml requires a newer version of libxml than most people have it requires them to go an install it before buiding php. cons: People feel that maintaing this would be too much of a hassle. Conserns about file size of the php package. 3) figure out some method to auto download config/install pros:

    No extra filesize for php source. No matinance for php developers.

cons:

    Someone needs to build this (semi complex).
    Reliant on other servers being up/ asseable from clients machines (ie have

internet connection from the machinge its being installed from) 4) Try and automate the sliming down of libxml and incorp it in the make dist. pros:

    Still have outta the box but it doesn't live in our cvs.

cons:

    Someone needs to build this (relitivly simple).
    Still have the filesize issue.

Do we vote? - Brad __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php