[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Autoconf check for XML support?
From: |
Ari Johnson |
Subject: |
Re: Autoconf check for XML support? |
Date: |
Sat, 7 Dec 2002 22:22:51 -0600 (CST) |
I want to check for XML support at ./configure time of my project, but
that won't be hard to set up a check for. As to the incremental code,
I've just been tracking the CVS version so I don't know what's in or out
of the stable branch. Thanks for confirming that it is. I'll send a
patch here if I get a chance to write the autoconf check.
Ari Johnson
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Federico Montesino Pouzols wrote:
>
> I have just checked that the incremental code in the stable
> branch, does it fail somehow?
>
> As for the check for xml, COMMON_XML_PARSING is defined in
> cc++/config.h if xml support is built in.
>
> On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 02:20:49PM -0500, David Sugar wrote:
> > I thought the incremental XML parsing patch had made it into the current
> > distributions. Let me review that. The cc++/config.h file provides
> > compile time info on if xml support was built. Perhaps you can create a
> > simple macro which examines it. I think having a OST_CCXX2_XML check
> > might be a useful addition to ost_check2.m4.
> >
> > On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Ari Johnson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I see that there is an OST_CCXX2_DYNLOADER check among the autoconf macros
> > > defined by ost_check2.m4, but no such way to determine if XML support is
> > > built in. I'm at the point in my project where I need to make the
> > > decision to move to a more portable autoconf/automake build environment,
> > > and that means that I'll need my configure script to check for an
> > > appropriate version of CommonC++ as well as for built-in XML support.
> > > As to incremental XML parsing, I'll just have to assume that people use
> > > the CVS version until an incremented release number exists for the next
> > > release, when I do OST_CCXX2_VERSION.
> > >
> > > Would it overclutter things to include an OST_CCXX2_XML check, or is there
> > > perhaps a better way to accomplish this? Thanks.
> > >
> > > Ari Johnson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>