On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Kaiserovi wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> > [...] I think some consideration should be given to how expat is used within
> > Sablotron. The distributed source is not the original expat, but a
> > modified version. [...]
> > The LD_LIBRARY_PATH requirement is ugly, but as things stand it's
> > necessary so as not to put the modified libxmltok.so* and libxmlparse.so*
> > libraries where they will screw up other programs which expect the orignal
> > expat versions.
>
> You are right that the Sablotron distribution of expat is slightly
> different. But as far as I'm aware, the only change is the modification
> of the original makefile (in a way that does not influence the binary).
> Nothing's changed in the C sources, so one could say that e.g.
> libxmlparse.so *is* the original expat library. Therefore, I don't find
> it necessary to rename the expat libraries nor link them in statically.
I was under the impression that it went further, but I don't have the
files here to check. At least some of the OS specific patches are
specific to Sablotron, and I presume that the need for them stems from
other patches?
> It may be better to move our makefiles for expat away from the Expat
> subdirectory (in the Sablotron distribution), leaving that subdirectory
> identical to the original expat distribution. Do you think it's worth
> it?
All it takes for that one is for the Makefile to be copied into the
directory or before the build. Licensing aside, if a new expat version
were to come out, you'd wind up generating the diffs anyway in order to
incorporate the changes. Might as well keep it separate from the
beginning. All it takes is a recursive diff to generate the patch which
you sit next to the original distribution. one command and you have your
version ready to go.
The approach I'm taking with autoconf means that I've moved Sablot/ and
Expat/ directories back into a src directory. All the objects and
includes wind up in different places too. It's new ground for me. So far
it does build something, albeit not a working executable, and it does a
nice job of producing a clean packaged distribution with one 'make dist'.
make clean is broken for some reason, and it's taking an odd route to
building the libraries which I need to figure out further. I'll send you
a copy when I get home.
--
Andrew McNaughton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
