Eric Kidd <eric.kidd@pobox.com> writes: > Expat 1.x was never packaged as a shared library by its upstream > maintainer. [...] Basically, expat 1.x was designed to be used > exactly as I'm using it--as an internal library. Ah, I was ignorant of this. This makes your decision much more understandable to me. > Possibly. I know, from personal experience, that James Clark typically > produces highly correct code, and expat 1.x has been used in uncountable > projects. > A future decision to upgrade to expat 2.0 would need to involve > a thorough audit of the new code base, since it's maintained by a new > author, "cvs diff -rjclark-orig" should do the trick. Actually, from skimming sourceforge's webcvs, the differences seem pretty small. > and used less extensively throughout industry. If Debian packages are any guide, those dependant on libxmltok1 are in the same number as those dependant on libexpat1. Of course this naive check misses those statically linking the older version. > If (A) were at all feasible, I'd prefer it, too. But James Clark never > packaged expat 1.x as a shared library, so the downstream inconsistencies > in various distros are a bit overwhelming from my perspective. Ok. -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature