On 05/11/09 12:50, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > Hi, Ho,
> http://git.gnome.org/cgit/libxml2/commit/?id=a194ccb8d19ddde94c2c04ddf197e6a629f7cc9b That patch is wrong, of course. Sorry, I guess I didn't look closely enough when I saw it. It should be reverted or replaced with something better, as Roumen pointed out. > As for fixing this issue - I guess the first will be to back out that patch > again. Then I > have thought about two possible solutions: > - deal with linking to static without LIBXML_STATIC defined by keep telling > people > to not do that. As for the failures with xmllint, etc. I can try to help > debug that if I > could get more information about build environment, etc. > - rather use the approach GLIB and friends use - only allow either static or > shared > builds, and define LIBXML_STATIC via the headers if needed instead of hoping > the user will remember it > > Personally I thought the second approach will be the less painful in future > approach, > and I made a patch as well as tested it in the situations I could think could > cause the > failure. I also redid the definitions in xmlexports.h to be more like glib's > which I think > is more clear. If I am not wrong, when I look at your patch, that second approach results in two sets of headers, one for the dynamic, the other for the static business. How should the binary distribution look like? Two packages? One package with two sets of headers? What about that "static for DLL", when the user builds a shared library which links to libxml2 statically? Do we now have three packages or three sets of headers there? The user will not have to define LIBXML_STATIC, but will likely chose a wrong package or a wrong set of headers. Nothing is won. As for the rest, I am very interested in seeing a working MSYS+MinGW build which produces libraries usable by Microsoft linker. I am presently next to unfamiliar with GNU autoconf/automake and given my dislike for the dreaded build system, I am likely to make myself familiar with it only in a grave need :) I would be eternaly thankful to you if you could revise your patch and make the thing work with the following constraints and freedoms: 1. Don't, under any circumstances, break the build on Linux nor alter the binary compatibility there or on any OS which has Unix roots. Much of the world, to name GNOME and KDE as prominent examples, depend on libxml2 and they will whip our backs til the skin comes off if we affect them. 2. Resulting libraries must be usable by Microsoft linker. This means that those forsaken __declspec(dllimport/dllexport) things must be defined properly for the build of libxml2 itself and the user code. 3. You may alter the output files on Windows, such as naming them differently (when I last tried, MSYS+MinGW produced a libxml2-2.dll, not the hoped for libxml2.dll). This is okay. As an orientation: If some greedy corporation must recompile all their Windows software for the new libxml2 release, that I don't care about. But if Tor Lillqvist can use the thing for his GTK and GIMP work without having to tweak it and thus be able to spend more time with his children, I am all in :) 4. If possible, use the same set of headers for the dynamic and the static business, even if the user has to do a -DLIBXML_STATIC for the static part to work. I think it is a small requirement which is easily met and eases the packaging of binaries. This now sounds like a whole pile of demands and like I would love to see it done by someone else. Believe me, if I have had the time to meet the secrets of GNU autoconf/automake, I would have done it long ago. You seem to know your way there and can do it much more swiftly than I could. As a remedy, don't bother with things beneath the win32 subdirectory in the source. Once your patch to autoconf/automake based build is complete, I'll fix the Windows scripts. Also, I can help you test your work and see whether my own MSYS+MinGW environment would take it. If this can work out, I'll do my best to adopt it for the dependants (libxslt, xmlsec) and dependencies (zlib, iconv, openssl) and my binary distribution of the whole pack I shall then make with GCC, dropping MSVC. It would be in everyone's best interest, since my binaries are quite widely used and noone can reproduce them due to a lack of my locally patched MSVC. What do you think? Ciao, Igor _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
