Re: libxml bundling

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote: > On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 13:27, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > It's not all about storage; it is about maintability. > > libxml2 is released so frequently that it makes no sense to > > bundle it. > > When talking about 3rd party software, it is not neccessary to always > have the latest version; it is much more important to have a version > that is stable. > > > Furthermore, libxml2 is basically installed on every system > > released in the last 1-2 years which renders the > > bundled lib redundant. > > Read Zeev's email. PHP is not only for Unix/Linux systems. I know that > libxml2 is very popular (especially because it is the GNOME XML library) > but it is not at all as widespread as BSD sockets (for example). I would like to to know what "systems" we're talking about here. Can you mention a known widespread system that doesn't have libxml2 (I'm sure you can). Do you know of maintainers on those systems that are unable to compile libxml2? (I assume they _are_ able to configure PHP). Don't get me wrong here. I Like libxml2 and it's great if PHP mandates it. I use libxml2 in YAZ. Maybe _that's_ why the whole idea of bundling is so weird for me. It will mean I don't _know_ what libxml2 YAZ is using. -- Adam > -- > Best regards, > > Per Lundberg / Capio ApS > Phone: +46-18-4186040 > Fax: +46-18-4186049 > Web: http://www.nobolt.com -- Adam Dickmeiss mailto:adam@indexdata.dk http://www.indexdata.dk Index Data T: +45 33410100 Mob.: 212 212 66