From: "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 7:46 AM
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 02:10:37PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 12:20 PM
> >
> >
> > > rbb 01/03/08 10:20:35
> > >
> > > Modified: . configure.in
> > > Log:
> > > Get us closer to building on Unix. Not perfect yet, but we no longer
> > > should look for expat in srclib.
> >
> > WTF? I thought gstein 'fixed' unix when he brought in xml/expat/lib ?!? putz.
>
> Nope. I had everything lined up to do this, but wanted to wait for Windows
> to get its Expat build process done. Once that happened, then I could flip
> the Unix side of the build and toss srclib/expat-lite.
Sounds fine... I missed that point entirely, was under the impression that unix
works, and the world was waiting on Win32 to clean up.
> I probably could have done the switch, and the tossing of srclib/expat-lite
> separately. Just didn't choose to.
>
> And I ain't no putz :-) ... I was doing it in stages to ensure that we
> didn't have a Unix / Windows build sync problem. It woulda really sucked for
> you if I went and deleted expat-lite before you did the Windows expat build
> stuff :-)
Thank you... appreciated it very much. Was pissed off at myself at that point
for my assumption [and we all know what happens when we AssUMe things :-]
> Now that you've done a ton of work in xml/expat, I'm going to propagate a
> bunch of that work back to the main Expat repository (along with Ryan's
> compiler warning patches). The ideal is for xml/expat to look just like the
> standard Expat CVS. However, we may always end up with a different Windows
> build (for example: you're only building static, but the official CVS needs
> to build DLLs). I know that I can get the Unix side in sync between
> httpd-2.0 and Expat's CVS.
I'm looking forward to it. I'll be happy to patch expat.dsp this weekend,
which I didn't use since we didn't need a .dll for win32.
The biggest issue was the versioning and conf file rewriting. Do we need to
do this at our level, or can that come with the version rather than three
substs for the version indirected?
I ask since it would be much cleaner to just create the versioning in the
release and checkout, rather than end users rewriting it.
