** Branch linked: lp:~ceejatec/zorba/feature-module-installation

You received this bug notification because you are a member of Zorba
Coders, which is the registrant for Zorba.

  Split binary/xq install directories for modules

Status in Zorba - The XQuery Processor:

Bug description:
  This is at the request of the Fedora package maintainer.

  Currently Zorba installs the .xq (and .xsd) files for schemas and the
  .so/.dll files for module external functions into the same directory,
  by default share/zorba-VERSION/modules. This does not meet Fedora
  packaging requirements, which state that any platform-dependent files
  such as .so files must go into lib/lib64 directories. Ideally, non-
  platform dependent files such as .xq and .xsd should be filed in

  There is another problem with the above scheme: since this directory
  is where non-core modules will install themselves also (and the only
  place Zorba will look for them), they are implicitly tied to Zorba's
  version number even though they should have independent versioning.

  The proposal is to split this into a total of four directories:
  platform-dependent/platform-independent, and Zorba-version-specific
  /non-Zorba-version-specific (ie, core modules vs. non-core modules).
  So, for instance:


  where "2.1" is the Zorba version.

  The easy way to do this would be to simply put all of the above on the
  default module-path, and change the install process to put everything
  in the right places. One downside to this is that it means Zorba will
  look in many wrong places when doing any URI resolution and when
  loading .so files - it knows it is looking for (say) an .xq file, but
  it will look in the two lib/ directories as well because they're all
  on the same module path.

  A better way to do this would be to separate the concepts inside Zorba
  as well, and have a "URI Path" for all URI resolution which is
  separate from the "module path" which is used for loading external
  function libraries. Zorba could do that for itself easily enough. The
  only issue is what would be the interpretation of --module-path (and
  the corresponding C++ API function) - would that be a backward-
  incompatible change?

To manage notifications about this bug go to:

Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders
Post to     : zorba-coders@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to