Re: libxml bundling

On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 09:50 AM, Dan Kalowsky wrote:

On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 08:02 AM, George Schlossnagle wrote:

I agree with Zeev on this. While bundling lack aesthetic appeal (to me), I think it is the only way to address possibly rapidly changing libxml changes, as well as providing support for systems which do not have libxml installed already.

Isn't this the point of having your configure script, to ensure that a supported version of an external library is in existence?

That is an option as well: simply not building without libxml. To me it seems like the major goal here is to have robust xml support in the default build. I guess that leaves open: a) bundling b) requiring as a dependency I guess I feel good about both of those. I think that letting the default build build without a version of libxml (or libfoo, or whatever is decided upon) defeats the goal of having robust xml support on all builds.