Matthew Burgess wrote: > 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 agree. Disabling a test doesn't seem to be big deal. I would think the developers would add a --without-glade switch. Perhaps we should do that, even if it's not accepted upstream. The simpler approach of just changing the failure to a warning also works for me. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
