lmi
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lmi] PATCH: Upgrade xmlwrapp to 0.9.0


From: Greg Chicares
Subject: Re: [lmi] PATCH: Upgrade xmlwrapp to 0.9.0
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:07:59 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0

On 2018-04-11 10:46, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 01:10:20 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> GC> On 2018-04-10 21:46, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
[...]
> GC> I think I'd rather move xmlwrapp out of this makefile and get it from
> GC> git (in which case we wouldn't have to ask you to make special releases
> GC> for lmi)
> 
>  It's not a big deal to make a xmlwrapp release, it's a standard autotools
> project and so it's just a matter of doing "make dist" (whatever people
> say, autotools are fine for simple projects and give you a lot of nice
> things for free). So I don't see any real need to change this, and I don't
> expect many changes to xmlwrapp in the future anyhow, this library is
> mostly in maintenance mode. Although it might be worth releasing a new
> major version using C++11 one of these days...

I think commit 6e4db9e12670 might change your mind. Also see Vaclav's
comments here:
  https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/lmi/2009-04/msg00029.html
following this line:
| > One obstacle I foresee is that xmlwrapp and xsltwrapp both contain an

Now that comeau is history, there's less reason than ever to avoid
autotools--especially now that we have that dependency already:

> GC> and maybe even build it with autotools, much as we do with wxPdfDoc.
> 
>  But I'd certainly welcome this.

[...snip discussion of VCS caching, which deserves a separate reply...]

>  As I said, I don't think it's a problem to continue to use xmlwrapp
> releases, but I certainly don't have any objections to using its Git
> version neither. The only problem is that it will require having autotools
> locally, which is not the case now (we only install libtool in
> install_cygwin.bat, and we'll need autoconf and automake too).

I think it's okay to add autoconf and automake. (I guess they aren't
needed for wxPdfDoc because those tools were already run and their
results included in the package we use, whereas xmlwrapp follows the
autotools philosophy more closely.)

On native msw-7, we don't update cygwin often: e.g., yesterday, Kim
just manually edited /etc/fstab to update the 'MinGW_' mount. But
it's not a bad idea to upgrade it every so often, and we haven't
done that in six months...so it shouldn't be too onerous to upgrade
it sometime this year. In fact, because there's an msw-10 migration
in the works, we should probably add autoconf and automake to
'install_cygwin.bat' now, so that it'll be ready in advance. I still
read the cygwin mailing list just for old times' sake, and I think
they're updating frequently to work around new anomalies introduced
by each new msw-10 update...so we may need to upgrade cygwin more
frequently in the future.

We can remove some old clutter at the same time:
  cvs git-cvs git-svn subversion
I think the change to remove those is just:

-   
bsdtar,cvs,dos2unix,doxygen,gdb,git,git-cvs,git-svn,libtool,make,openssh,patch,rsync,subversion,unzip,wget,zip,zsh
+   
bsdtar,dos2unix,doxygen,gdb,git,libtool,make,openssh,patch,rsync,unzip,wget,zip,zsh

but I don't use cygwin myself and don't know which of the numerous
autoconf and automake files found here:
  https://cygwin.com/packages/
would need to be added.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]