On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:

> Because, this will encourage people to do :
>
> --without-xml
>
> Instead of upgrading the system libxml2.
>

So you are forcing users and installations to use xml when they might not
want to upgrade their libxml?  This seems like a rather wrong way to go
about this.

But more importantly why don't you fix --with-xml to respect the
--disable-all flag in configure first :)

BTW I'm still -1 on bundling this code.


> -Sterling
>
> On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 13:04, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:25:39PM -0400, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > >
> > > 2) Libxml2 may be installed everywhere, but the version we rely upon
> > > isn't available everywhere.  As witnessed by a message to the list by
> > > michael, and a problem that someone else had over IRC.  Its fine to
> > > allow people to use external versions of libxml2, however, we need a
> > > recent version to operate.  For example, schema support is pretty
> > > essential, as its becoming the new DTD format for XML (and is required
> > > for proper SOAP support).
> >
> > If you need a recent version, why not just require it as part of
> > the configure tests as usual?
>

>---------------------------------------------------------------<
Dan Kalowsky                    "I'll walk a thousand miles just
http://www.deadmime.org/~dank    to slip this skin."
[EMAIL PROTECTED]        - "Streets of Philadelphia",
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                       Bruce Springsteen

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to