Re: bundling libxml2

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote: > Because, this will encourage people to do : > > --without-xml > > Instead of upgrading the system libxml2. > So you are forcing users and installations to use xml when they might not want to upgrade their libxml? This seems like a rather wrong way to go about this. But more importantly why don't you fix --with-xml to respect the --disable-all flag in configure first :) BTW I'm still -1 on bundling this code. > -Sterling > > On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 13:04, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:25:39PM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote: > > > > > > 2) Libxml2 may be installed everywhere, but the version we rely upon > > > isn't available everywhere. As witnessed by a message to the list by > > > michael, and a problem that someone else had over IRC. Its fine to > > > allow people to use external versions of libxml2, however, we need a > > > recent version to operate. For example, schema support is pretty > > > essential, as its becoming the new DTD format for XML (and is required > > > for proper SOAP support). > > > > If you need a recent version, why not just require it as part of > > the configure tests as usual? > >---------------------------------------------------------------< Dan Kalowsky "I'll walk a thousand miles just http://www.deadmime.org/~dank to slip this skin." dank-nom@aps-deadmime.org - "Streets of Philadelphia", kalowsky@php.net Bruce Springsteen