Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:28:58 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> To: Marc Recht <marc@informatik.uni-bremen.de> Cc: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, phk@critter.freebsd.dk, current@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: expat2 in the base system? Message-ID: <20021002122858.GJ44476@starjuice.net> In-Reply-To: <20021002135749.4ba3abc3.marc@informatik.uni-bremen.de> References: <20021002103007.588d3bf3.marc@informatik.uni-bremen.de> <84545.1033548356@critter.freebsd.dk> <20021002115138.GE90861@fump.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de> <20021002135749.4ba3abc3.marc@informatik.uni-bremen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On (2002/10/02 13:57), Marc Recht wrote: > IMO 1. would be better with a complete expat. So the ports could use > the system version and probably/maybe the drift between the official- > and system-version will not be that big. And compared to Perl expat it > rather small. So the bloat couldn't be that big.. What? Have you had much experience with the expat ports? I'm guessing that you're arguing a theoretical point. For a while, we had two versions in the ports tree, and some applications had conflicting version requirements that caused them to blow up horribly (e.g. mod_perl, PageKit). We're at a lucky moment in time, where there's only one version of expat in the ports tree. But think about what happens when there are two mainstream versions at large again. Please let's learn from past mistakes and give this library a completely separate name, perhaps with stripped down functionality. Then ports can still choose to use it instead of the expat2 port if it does the job for them, and we have our cake and eat it. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021002122858.GJ44476>