Re: Bundling libxml2 default?

On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 14:27, Adam Dickmeiss wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:30:07AM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 10:50, Adam Dickmeiss wrote: > > > With PHP5 as of today, a "clean" configure - with just > > > --with-apxs > > > compiles PHP5 with a bundled libxml2. That can't be right? > > > I have libxml2-dev installed. Do I really have to use > > > --without-bundle-libxml > > > to make a sane installation? > > > > > > > Yep. We default to using the bundle, just like we do with expat, or > > mysql, gd, or any other piece of software we bundle. > Ok, here we go again.. > > I still have not seen any good reason to bundle. You state at > http://edwardbear.org/blog/ that libxml2 is bundled because > expat > is bundled. Is that the best argument? > > You want people to switch to a more "modern" interface. The > new interface apparently breaks BC in multiple ways (that's > not your fault, the tools are just different). How about unbundling > expat and let people choose with configure what of those > libs they want to use. That solution will both make configure > for PHP easier to use _and_ save you from updating the bundled > software (for security updates, for example). > Most of those ways can be fixed, the unfixables are relatively minor. As for unbundling, I've repeatedly said. Unbundle expat, and I'm fine with unbundling libxml2 (I speak only for myself though). The point is, if we only bundle expat, then expat becomes the defacto library, we can't deprecate it. People will develop both extensions and user space solutions for expat's functionality and expat doesn't currently doesn't come close to meeting our needs. -Sterling -- "Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it." - Richard Feynman