On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:50:53 +1200, Kevin Buckley <kevin.m.buck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does an LFS system really need XML parsing, from expat or > libxml2, as a feature? > > The suggestion above is that gettext only needs it for Glade support. That's true. So far, only Glade support in gettext requires an XML parser. > Will Glade ever be part of LFS? I very much doubt it. > To add an extra package to LFS just to support a possible use > of Glade at some point seems like "package creep". Yes, I realise that it looks like package creep. However, upstream have declared fairly strongly that they'd expect gettext to be built with Glade support, and we try, wherever possible, to "do the right thing" with regard to upstream's expectations. That said, from http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-utils/2010-05/msg00046.html: "The FAILure notice is meant as a reminder to the distributor to look again whether he really wants to distribute binaries with such a limitation. It is still the distributor's decision and responsibility to do so if he wants. But the FAILure serves as a warning." So, we could simply alter gettext's testsuite (via a patch or a sed) to skip those tests that we know will fail due to our lack of expat. > b) a "reinstall gettext with Glade support" added to BLFS as a > dependency of the Glade instructions and so keeping expat and > libxml2 in BLFS. I think that's a good suggestion too, especially given Andrew's observations w.r.t glib, libcroco & libxml2. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
