apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davi Arnaut <d...@haxent.com.br>
Subject Re: Get rid of builtin expat
Date Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:08:58 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Davi Arnaut <davi@haxent.com.br> wrote:
>> We don't need to bundle it because it's a mandatory API, we just have to
>> explain to (win32) users how to extract a recent expat at xml/. It's not
>> a matter of API and we don't *need* to bundle expat, it's becoming a burden.
> 
> No - the last time I checked, simply extracting a recent expat into
> xml/ isn't sufficient for Win32.  Expat has changed its build systems
> for Win32 many times over the years, so how we interface with a
> bundled expat of varying versions requires manual customization of our
> project files.  IOW, expat 2 isn't a drop-in replacement for 1.95.8 on
> Win32.  (The library name has changed, etc, etc.)

I said "explain to the user", that implies explaining which versions,
etc. But, how about leaving it for win32 and removing for other platforms?

> I am very much against projects that do not bundle required
> dependencies - not everyone is on a platform that has a good package
> management system.  I want a good out-of-the-box experience for folks
> on bare-bones platforms.  For those who are fortunate to be on 'rich'
> platforms can simply choose to use the --with flags.

IMHO, we are not in the business of solving packaging problems. If the
user has to build apr-util (on a bare-bones plataform) he/she surely can
build expat too, that's how things are supposed to work. "Hiding" only
make things worse later, ie: bringing another library which links with
another expat.. boom.

> And, I'm not so sure it's that much of a burden.

Sure it's a burden, the time we are spending here discussing whether or
not to bundle, tracking bugs or updating our bundled version -- could
all be better spent on other things :-)

--
Davi Arnaut

Mime
View raw message