Subject: Re: commit -- libglade support
From: Sam TH (sam@uchicago.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 18:01:02 CST
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 01:44:15PM -0800, Paul Rohr wrote:
> At 12:22 PM 2/8/01 -0500, Thomas Fletcher wrote:
> >On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Thomas Briggs wrote:
> >> > we have support for libxml-2, and libglade needs libxml-1 (but, yes, it
> >> when
> >> > glade upgrades to libxml-2 it may be a good argument to change the
> default
> >> > in the unix build from expat to libxml).
> >>
> >> Does anybody else think that this has "really bad idea" written all over
> >> it? libxml-1 for glade, optionally libxml-2 for AbiWord, optional shared
> >> expat for AbiWord or static expat in AbiWord? On every Unix platform?
> >> Maybe I've been in WindowsLand for too long, but this just sounds like a
> >> disaster waiting to happen to me.
> >
> > I have previously voiced my opinions on why these types
> >of cross dependancies are bad ideas. I won't re-iterate,
> >but know that you are not alone.
>
> Ditto. I like being flexible and enabling choices, but two choices of XML
> libraries and linkage are bad enough. Three is ridiculous.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we use (or enable the use of)
libxml1. If anyone is, they should stop. :-)
It's just that people suggested that libxml[12] weren't compatible
with each other, and that this would make using glade hard with the
libxml2 version of Abi.
And on the point of having two many different libraries, I would just
be using expat, if I were the only person working on this project.
But far be it from me to reject Aaron's patches to keep libxml support
working.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Feb 08 2001 - 17:59:55 CST