Tinny Ng wrote:
>
> Murray Cumming wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that if we rename src to xercesc then there will be
> > no need to have an include directory.
>
> No. In the binary distribution, we don't ship the source. Binary distribution only
>ships parts that are needed to "Run" the applications, i.e., the headers, the
>binaries, docs, and samples. Thus renaming src
> to xercesc is not enough for users who use the binary distribution which does not
>have the src folder at all.
OK, I didn't realise.
>
> > I do not believe that it will be necessary to do #3 if we do #1 and #2
> > because the files in src will include the copied headers in
> > include/xercesc/.
>
> Yes we need. For users who build from CVS tree or source distribution directly, the
>"include" folder does not exist at all. So if we only do #1 and #2 without #3, then
>users who build from CVS tree directly
> will for sure be broken.
OK, I didn't realise that there is never an include directory for source
distributions. I forgot to use my eyes when looking.
This brings up a new issue - Surely binary distribution should be via
rpm/deb/pkgadd etc. I don't see the sense in shared libraries which
aren't installed. Luckily, if we make these changes then we will be one
step closer to a build system that can do that easily.
Naturally I vote 1. It's unfortunate that the cvs work has to be done,
but I believe that problems should be fixed. And I want Xerces-C++ to be
easy to install and use, and I want to see it in Redhat/Mandrake/Suse so
that my users don't have to download it.
> Tinny
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
