William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> On 7/29/07, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Anyone who does is a self-selecting techie. How hard can it be to >>> list dependencies and where to get them? Yes of course binary >>> packages with shiny installers should bundle dependencies, but >>> that's not at all the same as bundling in a source tarball. >> No, because they'd have to hand-edit the project files to compile >> depending upon which version of Expat they download. IMO, that is >> bogus - our barrier of entry should be as low as we can make it. -- > > Ditto. This doesn't say anything about a Solaris 2.6, or BSD install, > or AIX, or HPUX, or any of dozens of combinations that APR should just > compile with, out of the box. > > If we continue down this myopic path, the apps that APR supports become > less and less relevant. And without such apps, APR itself is irrelevant.
Where do we draw a line? Or should we ship every dependency? Again, if the user is going to build apr-util he/she surely can build expat too! And should we ship it because we have non-upstream fixes? That's non-sense, or we would have to bundle a lot of stuff. If fixes are needed we could just bundle the patches. And why expat? Can't we in the future provide a common layer for other xml parsers? Who's going to keep expat up to date? -- Davi Arnaut
