On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 11:39:10AM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 01:53:25PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > > If I had to vote, I guess I'd be -0. Even if we import a static
> > > `new' expat into our tree, it adds the risks of new bugs, while
> > > solving a problem we don't have.
> > I think we might have a problem in the long run. Right now, if an
> > application wants to use a Subversion library, it has to use
> > expat-lite. Suppose the application also wanted to use the real expat
> > for other purposes; would there be a namespace conflict?
> > To be honest, I don't know if that's a real problem now or whether
> > upgrading would help eliminate it. More study required. But it's a
> > possibility.
> Exactly. This was my comment about expat-lite not being able to live in the
> same address space as the real expat (or heck, Apache's expat-lite!)
> Note that Apache is intending to lose its copy of expat-lite, too, in favor
> of a released version.
I hope you'll excuse me if I find this funny. :-)
When you figure out exactly what you want, let me know, and I'll do
With regards to CVS vs released, I understand the desire to use a
released version as a baseline (and it's a good idea). However, there
are at least a couple fixes (at least one of which isn't even in CVS,
since I submitted it about 3 hours ago) which will be neccessary. So
I reccommend starting from a CVS build right now, and moving to the
next release whenever it comes out.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:21 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored