On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 09:25, Andrew Dunbar wrote: > If we are playing it safe that seems wrong to me. > I've suggested playing it safe by always using > libiconv but some people want to use what is already > on their system. Unless it's a known thing that > sytems are full of broken expats then I think we > should > be consistent and do the "playing it safe" stuff. > My 2 cents. > > Andrew Dunbar. > Thanks, I need all the spare change (so to speak) that i can get. A lot of this is still rather new to me. However, the extra time spent building stuffs like expat when i have all i need in perfect working order simply because i just found out that it was safe to rm -rf ../expat, ntm the fact that I've occasionally run into problems where expat wouldn't even build or work properly while it would on other ppl's systems and i had my system expat sitting unused right there...
BTW, I have never heard of any widespread expat brokenness, and of course if someone does not have it installed in the system then whichever type of check is used it will succeed to know that peer must be used. Yes, it seems only a manifestation of my lack of inquisitiveness / intelligence in a particular area but then again, most of the accepted-to-be-bugs are such of someone's. Thanks for the infos and let's see what others have to say. Best regards -Mark
