Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> But the policy is that the presence of features in the final build
>>> should not depend on the incidental presence of features in the build
>>> environment. Either you select a feature, then it's built, or you
>>> don't, then it's not. So the only options we really have are adding
>>> another switch for libxslt, or including it with libxml. I'm not sure
>>> which is better.
>
>> Then let's add a switch for libxslt.
>
> +1 --- the fact that so many buildfarm members only have one of the two
> libraries is pretty suggestive that that's common. We shouldn't require
> both libraries to build the core xml features, if only because
> contrib/xml2 is expected to go away eventually, no?
well from a buildfarm maintainer perspective - I only have (or had on
some boxes) only libxml(or rather libxm-dev) installed because that's
what was required when we got the initial XML support.
Most of those boxes would have neither of those two - it's the buildfarm
itself that resulted in that library getting installed (and only that
one because it was sufficient at the time).
Stefan
