Re: [xml] LibXML2 digitally signed?

2009-11-17 Thread Daniel Veillard
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:28:13PM -0800, Michael Shang wrote:
 Hi
  
 I would like to know where I can find a version of the LibXML2library with 
 the 32bits and 64bits dlls digitally signed?
 The one I downloaded on the website did not contain digital signature.

  I sign the rpms I produce for Linux. I will never do that on Windows
since I don't even have a licence for the Windows operating system.

 Does the current license allows any company that use these dlls to digitally 
 sign them?

  The licence is provided as part of the package sources. You can ask
a lawyer what it things about your question. I'm not a lawyer

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
dan...@veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/
___
xml mailing list, project page  http://xmlsoft.org/
xml@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml


Re: [xml] RelaxNG schema and entities file: namespace warning : Namespace default prefix was not found

2009-11-17 Thread Daniel Veillard
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 04:54:23PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Consider this example:
 
 !DOCTYPE foo [
 !ENTITY comment 'comment id=comment.xml /'
 ]
 foo xmlns=http://foo.bar/ns/foo;
 ...
 comment;
 ...
 /foo
 
 When I run `xmllint --noout --noent --relaxng foo.rng foo.xml' I
 receive:
 
 | namespace warning : Namespace default prefix was not found
 | ...
 | element comment: Relax-NG validity error : Did not expect element comment 
 there
 
 But `jing foo.rng foo.xml' succeeds and does not complain. I have to add
 the xmlns attribute to comment for xmllint to succeed. Is this correct
 or an issue in xmllint? I wouldn't have expected, that I have to add the
 namespace to this entity. I thought it gets directly replaced.

  libxml2 being designed as an editing toolkit, and before XML
namespaces does not handle well this kind of namespace and entities
mixups. Best is to add the namespace declaration in ten entity, yes.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
dan...@veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/
___
xml mailing list, project page  http://xmlsoft.org/
xml@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml


Re: [xml] MSYS and MINGW: undefined reference to _imp__xmlFree

2009-11-17 Thread Martin Schlemmer
 On 2009/11/09 at 01:26 AM, Igor Zlatkovic i...@zlatkovic.com
wrote:
 On 05/11/09 12:50, Martin Schlemmer wrote:

Hi,

Sorry for the extra late reply - year end with all its deadlines, etc.

 As for fixing this issue - I guess the first will be to back out
that patch 
 again.  Then I
 have thought about two possible solutions:
 - deal with linking to static without LIBXML_STATIC defined by keep
telling 
 people
 to not do that.  As for the failures with xmllint, etc. I can try to
help 
 debug that if I
 could get more information about build environment, etc.
 - rather use the approach GLIB and friends use - only allow either
static or 
 shared
 builds, and define LIBXML_STATIC via the headers if needed instead
of hoping
 the user will remember it
 
 Personally I thought the second approach will be the less painful in
future 
 approach,
 and I made a patch as well as tested it in the situations I could
think 
 could cause the
 failure.  I also redid the definitions in xmlexports.h to be more
like 
 glib's which I think
 is more clear.
 
 If I am not wrong, when I look at your patch, that second approach
 results in two sets of headers, one for the dynamic, the other for
the
 static business. How should the binary distribution look like? Two
 packages?

That was the idea.  Normally they would use either mostly only static
or
dynamic linking, and if they are not sure, it should not really matter.
 Just
the DLL could be another download for those that only looked for that.

 One package with two sets of headers? What about that static
 for DLL, when the user builds a shared library which links to
libxml2
 statically?

I will be honest if I say that I really do not know if and why this is
needed
on Windows, so I will rather refrain from answering.

 Do we now have three packages or three sets of headers
 there? The user will not have to define LIBXML_STATIC, but will
likely
 chose a wrong package or a wrong set of headers. Nothing is won.
 

Ah well, like I said, I could see two ways of doing this:
- Keep saying no don't do that
- or just don't allow it

If the second is not appropriate, and you don't mind keeping repeating
yourself,
I do not mind trying to get it working again via another solution.

 As for the rest, I am very interested in seeing a working MSYS+MinGW
 build which produces libraries usable by Microsoft linker. I am
 presently next to unfamiliar with GNU autoconf/automake and given my
 dislike for the dreaded build system, I am likely to make myself
 familiar with it only in a grave need :) I would be eternaly thankful
to
 you if you could revise your patch and make the thing work with the
 following constraints and freedoms:
 
 1. Don't, under any circumstances, break the build on Linux nor
alter
 the binary compatibility there or on any OS which has Unix roots.
Much
 of the world, to name GNOME and KDE as prominent examples, depend on
 libxml2 and they will whip our backs til the skin comes off if we
affect
 them.
 
 2. Resulting libraries must be usable by Microsoft linker. This
means
 that those forsaken __declspec(dllimport/dllexport) things must be
 defined properly for the build of libxml2 itself and the user code.
 

With all the development, etc at MSFT, you would have thought that
they
might have decided by now to try and get on with the time for
exporting
and importing symbols as well.  Especially if they did not mind
breaking
things with the needed manifest stuff for newer MSCRT, etc 

 3. You may alter the output files on Windows, such as naming them
 differently (when I last tried, MSYS+MinGW produced a libxml2-2.dll,
not
 the hoped for libxml2.dll). This is okay. As an orientation: If some
 greedy corporation must recompile all their Windows software for the
new
 libxml2 release, that I don't care about. But if Tor Lillqvist can
use
 the thing for his GTK and GIMP work without having to tweak it and
thus
 be able to spend more time with his children, I am all in :)
 

As Roumen showed, it is possible to not have the version appended by
libtool.
However, if you want it compatible with GCC and MSVC, you will have to
have
all three library extensions (.a, .dll.a and .lib), because as I
pointed out, GCC
search for .dll.a - .a - .lib if you did not specify static, and
without the
.dll.a and -DLIBXML_STATIC things will break ...

 4. If possible, use the same set of headers for the dynamic and the
 static business, even if the user has to do a -DLIBXML_STATIC for
the
 static part to work. I think it is a small requirement which is
easily
 met and eases the packaging of binaries.
 
 This now sounds like a whole pile of demands and like I would love
to
 see it done by someone else. Believe me, if I have had the time to
meet
 the secrets of GNU autoconf/automake, I would have done it long ago.
You
 seem to know your way there and can do it much more swiftly than I
 could. As a remedy, don't bother with things beneath the win32
 subdirectory in the source. Once your patch to 

Re: [xml] MSYS and MINGW: undefined reference to _imp__xmlFree

2009-11-17 Thread Martin Schlemmer
 On 2009/11/09 at 10:53 PM, Roumen Petrov bugtr...@roumenpetrov.info wrote:
 Martin Schlemmer wrote:
 On 11/8/2009 at 8:08 PM, Roumen Petrov bugtr...@roumenpetrov.info wrote:
 Roumen Petrov wrote:
 Martin Schlemmer wrote:
 Hi,

 [SNIP]
 It seems to me Martin is right but proposed patch is not correct to me. 
 I think that code has to set LIBXML_STATIC internally when is compiled 
 for static library. As libxml build is libtool based we may use PIC 
 definition. libtool when compile source for shared always set -DPIC .

 
 Idea was sort of to remove the need for that.  I will respond to Igor's mail 
 about that.
 
 Now with reverted commit
 http://git.gnome.org/cgit/libxml2/commit/?id=a194ccb8d19ddde94c2c04ddf197e6a
  
 
 629f7cc9b
 , i.e. restored ...defined(IN_LIBXML)... plus following patch
 ==
 diff --git a/libxml.h b/libxml.h
 index 3c44c83..1656ac2 100644
 --- a/libxml.h
 +++ b/libxml.h
 @@ -90,4 +90,7 @@ void __xmlGlobalInitMutexDestroy(void);
   #endif
   #endif
   #endif
 +#ifndef PIC
 +#  define LIBXML_STATIC
 +#endif
   #endif /* ! __XML_LIBXML_H__ */
 ==

 
 This probably will break MSVC and Borland.  Also non-libtool-enabled builds 
 might also break,
 as -fPIC -DPIC is added by libtool, but ignored by gcc on win32 as all 
 code 
 on x86-win32 is already
 position independent.
 
 No ! -fPIC is not set for gcc mingw target by libtool !
 
 For mingw target it is another definition that you already use in the
 patch proposed by you : #if defined(DLL_EXPORT)  i.e. libtool for
 mingw target set -DDLL_EXPORT -DPIC. For gcc on linux it is -fPIC -DPIC
 . For other compilers as example -kPIC -DPIC.
 In brief one is compiler flag and another is common for all platforms -
 it is C preprocessor flag -DPIC.
 

Never mind here - I missed that it was in an internal header, and thus would not
have effected external projects linking against libxml.

 
 Not sure what to suggest with this, but to check that with reverted commit 
 that xmlsec is indeed
 built with -DLIBXML_STATIC if linking to the static version of the library.
 
 Don't mix preprocessor flags set by other projects when static linking
 with libxml is required.
 

Like Igor pointed out, LIBXML_STATIC needs to be defined if you link against the
static version for the current setup.  If using pkg-config for a static only 
build of
libxml, this is not an issue, but ...


Regards,
Martin


Vrywaringsklousule / Disclaimer:  
http://www.nwu.ac.za/it/gov-man/disclaimer.html 

___
xml mailing list, project page  http://xmlsoft.org/
xml@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml


Re: [xml] MSYS and MINGW: undefined reference to _imp__xmlFree

2009-11-17 Thread Martin Schlemmer
 On 2009/11/09 at 10:53 PM, Roumen Petrov bugtr...@roumenpetrov.info wrote:
 Igor Zlatkovic wrote:
 On 05/11/09 12:50, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
 [SNIP]
 3. You may alter the output files on Windows, such as naming them
 differently (when I last tried, MSYS+MinGW produced a libxml2-2.dll, not
 the hoped for libxml2.dll). This is okay. As an orientation: If some
 greedy corporation must recompile all their Windows software for the new
 libxml2 release, that I don't care about. But if Tor Lillqvist can use
 the thing for his GTK and GIMP work without having to tweak it and thus
 be able to spend more time with his children, I am all in :)
 
 if we use libtool flag -avoid-version the dll will be created without
 version number in name. I propose a patch t
 
 This year issue with patch (use more compatible autotools based build
 system for windows hosts) is closed with resolution Not GNOME (!).
 

I would suggest splitting the patch into different ones that only handle one 
issue 
at a time, and then sending them here to be reviewed.  Hopefully this is the 
preferred
method for libxml.

I can however point out that at least the $(EXEEXT) bits might be bogus, as it 
would
seem to only affect things if cross-compiled to win32 on a non-win32 host.  
Here on
a Windows host with MSYS it works fine, as the convenience wrappers have a .exe
extension.  So it might rather be a libtool issue when cross-compiling, 
although I
do not have that much experience in this field.


Regards,
Martin


Vrywaringsklousule / Disclaimer:  
http://www.nwu.ac.za/it/gov-man/disclaimer.html 

___
xml mailing list, project page  http://xmlsoft.org/
xml@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml


[xml] xmllint: validating a document that doesn't specify a DTD

2009-11-17 Thread Murray Cumming
Should I be able to validate an XML document (such as a .glade file)
that has no DOCTYPE line, and therefore doesn't specify a DTD?

When I try it with xmllint, I get this error
  validity error : Validation failed: no DTD found !
even when I have specified a local DTD with --dtdvalid.

-- 
murr...@murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com

___
xml mailing list, project page  http://xmlsoft.org/
xml@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml


[xml] Compilation fails with Sun Studio on Solaris 10

2009-11-17 Thread Alexander Skwar
Hello.

libtool: compile:  /opt/sunstudio12.1/bin/cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I..
-I./include -I../include -D_REENTRANT -I/opt/local/zlib//include -g -c
../relaxng.c  -KPIC -DPIC -o .libs/relaxng.o
../relaxng.c, line 5372: operands have incompatible types:
 pointer to char : pointer to const unsigned char
../relaxng.c, line 5372: warning: argument #5 is incompatible with prototype:
prototype: pointer to const unsigned char : ../relaxng.c, line 510
argument : pointer to char
../relaxng.c, line 9462: warning: argument #3 is incompatible with prototype:
prototype: pointer to const unsigned char : ../relaxng.c, line 2347
argument : pointer to char
cc: acomp failed for ../relaxng.c
*** Error code 1
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `relaxng.lo'
Current working directory /export/home/user/Source/libxml2-2.7.6/.32.

(Also available at http://pastebin.ca/1674937 for a guaranteed
unwrapped version...)

I was trying to compile libxml2-2.7.6 on a Solaris 10 5/09 Sparc 
system using Sun Studio 12 Update 1 compiler. No CFLAGS or CXXFLAGS
have been set.

--($ ~/Source/libxml2-2.7.6/.32.)-- env | grep ^C
CXX=/opt/sunstudio12.1/bin/CC
CC=/opt/sunstudio12.1/bin/cc

Any idea about what might be wrong?

Searching the list, I found an /ancient/ mail from 3 years, 28 weeks, 
1 day, 1 hour and 10 minutes ago *G* on
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.lib.xml.general/11165/focus=11169

However, according to Daniels answer from way back then, Bill
commited some patch.

I fiddled now with relaxng:

--- ../relaxng.c-kaputt_:-( Di Nov 17 16:14:40 2009
+++ ../relaxng.cDi Nov 17 16:15:23 2009
@@ -5369,7 +5369,7 @@
 } else {
 xmlRngPErr(ctxt, node, XML_RNGP_CHOICE_CONTENT,
expecting name, anyName, nsName or choice : got %s\n,
-   (node == NULL ? nothing : node-name), NULL);
+   (node == NULL ? BAD_CAST nothing : node-name), NULL);
 return (NULL);
 }
 if (ret != def) {

http://pastebin.ca/1674944

Now it compiles, I think - but I get a sh*tload of symbol referencing
errors - http://pastebin.ca/1674946 . Unsure if they are related?

Well, I'd VERY much appreciate, if someone more knowledgeable could
please have a look ;)

Thanks a lot,
Alexander

___
xml mailing list, project page  http://xmlsoft.org/
xml@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml


Re: [xml] xmllint: validating a document that doesn't specify a DTD

2009-11-17 Thread Murray Cumming
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 14:24 +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:33:44PM +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
  Should I be able to validate an XML document (such as a .glade file)
  that has no DOCTYPE line, and therefore doesn't specify a DTD?
  
  When I try it with xmllint, I get this error
validity error : Validation failed: no DTD found !
  even when I have specified a local DTD with --dtdvalid.
 
   Works for me with the version from git head:

Thanks. I was actually using 
  xmllint --valid --dtdvalid mydtd.dtd mydoc.xml

So is --dtdvalid an alternative to --valid rather than a way of using
--valid?

-- 
murr...@murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com

___
xml mailing list, project page  http://xmlsoft.org/
xml@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml


Re: [xml] xmllint: validating a document that doesn't specify a DTD

2009-11-17 Thread Daniel Veillard
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 05:03:41PM +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
 On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 14:24 +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
  On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:33:44PM +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
   Should I be able to validate an XML document (such as a .glade file)
   that has no DOCTYPE line, and therefore doesn't specify a DTD?
   
   When I try it with xmllint, I get this error
 validity error : Validation failed: no DTD found !
   even when I have specified a local DTD with --dtdvalid.
  
Works for me with the version from git head:
 
 Thanks. I was actually using 
   xmllint --valid --dtdvalid mydtd.dtd mydoc.xml
 
 So is --dtdvalid an alternative to --valid rather than a way of using
 --valid?

  and alternative, as DTD validation as defined in the XML-1.0 spec
is --valid i.e. validating as parsing based on DOCTYPE contained in
the document, and --dtdvalid is just a different kind of validation
closely related, but certainly different, and in subtle case you may
see different results (but in general it will be the same !)

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
dan...@veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/
___
xml mailing list, project page  http://xmlsoft.org/
xml@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml