"Jeremy White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > So...turns out that in this flood of new reporting, that one of the errors > only happened to me, and it further turns out to be entirely user error; > I didn't have libxslt. > > So, the obvious first solution is for me to actually read my configure > results and deal with it. > > But I think I serve nicely as an example of the sort of incompetent user > for whom it would still be nice to have make test work cleanly. > > I didn't see any obvious standard way of coping with this situation. > Did I miss it? I imagined that maybe we'd skip these cases, but I didn't > see evidence of that. I could also imagine a facility whereby we note > that the configure was not clean, and then refuse to run make test > (or at least refuse to run the full winetest battery). Should we make > libxslt non optional (or at least require an explicit --without-libxslt > in order to build without it)? Hi Jeremy,
This could be a good option. libxslt should properly be non-optional since msxml3 relys on it. >From the Makefile.in, its appears to have linked to libxslt for quite some time, but was never an issue since it was never used. Francois Gouget raised this bug, http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13035 that libslt should be dynamic, which could be another option. Best Regards Alistair Leslie-Hughes
