On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 03:15:28AM -0500, Daniel Richard G. wrote: > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > >>What was the motivation for trying to shoehorn multi-arch > >>support into xml2-config? > > > >Avoid keeping a distro specific patch, assuming it would work > >elsewhere. What is your suggestion, removal or fixing ? > > I would lean toward removal. The problem is harder than it looks, > and even if the code worked perfectly, there's no established > convention (as far as I'm aware) for requesting architecture X or Y > from a foo-config script.
Okay, I reverted that part of 87b4d6f6105658a99b976f812223c8edf4469265 > This is, after all, one of the reasons why most folks have moved on > to using pkg-config. I do like the simplicity of xml2-config, and > pkg-config can be a PITA to build on older Unix systems, so I'm not > at all going to say that xml2-config should go away. But I think it > should stay simple--- and projects that want to consume LibXML2 in a > multi-arch-aware capacity should find it via pkg-config, relying on > that framework's mature multi-arch support. To me xml2-config is mostly about ensuring portability to platform where you can't expect pkg-config to work or even be present. I agree it should stay simple. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Open Source and Standards, Red Hat [email protected] | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
