Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 7/29/07, Davi Arnaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
