From transfire at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 10:25:39 2007 From: transfire at gmail.com (TRANS) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:25:39 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] Getting Started Message-ID: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> Hi-- First post to the new list. Glad to see so many people have made it --some 32 subscribers by last count. To bring everyone up to speed, I'm acting project Admin and Pat Eyler has volunteered to be "backup" Admin. Charlie Savage and Ross Bamford are signed on as Senior Developers. If any one else has patches or has C experience and would like to get involved with development, just tell me, along with your Rubyforge username, and I'll sign you up. Tom Copeland did us a big favor and converted the old CVS repo to SVN. Anyone can check it out here: svn checkout svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/libxml2 svn checkout http://libxml2.rubyforge.org/svn/trunk/ for developers: svn checkout svn+ssh://developername at rubyforge.org/var/svn/libxml2 The first thing I think we should do, now that we have the repo, is to clean it up a bit. I was thinking that perhaps the libxml, libxslt and the www directories should all have their own branches/tags/trunk. Is that a good idea? Or is it better just to leave as one? We certainly need to clean up the arrangement, whatever we do. The repo currently looks like this: branches/ DEV_0_4/ libxml/ MAINT_0_3_8/ libxml/ libxslt/ libxslt/ tags/ REL_0_3_6/ libxml/ libxslt/ REL_0_3_8/ libxml/ REL_0_3_8_2/ libxml/ REL_0_3_8_4/ libxml/ Root_DEV_0_4/ libxml/ Root_MAINT_0_3_8/ libxml/ init/ libxslt/ trunk/ CVSROOT/ libxml/ libxslt/ www/ I'd like to get rid of anything we don't need and get consistent naming across the board. Suggestions? (Ross maybe you can advise here). Thanks and Welcome! T. From has.sox at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 11:06:49 2007 From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:06:49 +1000 Subject: [Libxml2] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fff50390708100806g1b89b74r2eb1d7d2ef1900d4@mail.gmail.com> On 8/11/07, TRANS wrote: > > Hi-- > > First post to the new list. Glad to see so many people have made it > --some 32 subscribers by last count. > > To bring everyone up to speed, I'm acting project Admin and Pat Eyler > has volunteered to be "backup" Admin. Charlie Savage and Ross Bamford > are signed on as Senior Developers. If any one else has patches or has > C experience and would like to get involved with development, just > tell me, along with your Rubyforge username, and I'll sign you up. > > Tom Copeland did us a big favor and converted the old CVS repo to SVN. > Anyone can check it out here: > > svn checkout svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/libxml2 > svn checkout http://libxml2.rubyforge.org/svn/trunk/ > > for developers: > > svn checkout svn+ssh://developername at rubyforge.org/var/svn/libxml2 > > The first thing I think we should do, now that we have the repo, is to > clean it up a bit. I was thinking that perhaps the libxml, libxslt and > the www directories should all have their own branches/tags/trunk. Is > that a good idea? Or is it better just to leave as one? We certainly > need to clean up the arrangement, whatever we do. The repo currently > looks like this: > > branches/ > DEV_0_4/ > libxml/ > MAINT_0_3_8/ > libxml/ > libxslt/ > libxslt/ > tags/ > REL_0_3_6/ > libxml/ > libxslt/ > REL_0_3_8/ > libxml/ > REL_0_3_8_2/ > libxml/ > REL_0_3_8_4/ > libxml/ > Root_DEV_0_4/ > libxml/ > Root_MAINT_0_3_8/ > libxml/ > init/ > libxslt/ > trunk/ > CVSROOT/ > libxml/ > libxslt/ > www/ > > I'd like to get rid of anything we don't need and get consistent > naming across the board. Suggestions? (Ross maybe you can advise > here). > > Thanks and Welcome! > T. this is great. I'm really excited about this moving forward. Even though I can't offer anything in the C department, I plan on giving it a cracking run in ruby ;) -Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/libxml2-discuss/attachments/20070811/a72e92e3/attachment.html From keith at oreilly.com Fri Aug 10 10:47:22 2007 From: keith at oreilly.com (Keith Fahlgren) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:47:22 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46BC7A7A.803@oreilly.com> On 8/10/07 7:25 AM, TRANS wrote: > To bring everyone up to speed, I'm acting project Admin and Pat Eyler > has volunteered to be "backup" Admin. Charlie Savage and Ross Bamford > are signed on as Senior Developers. Great, I appreciate your work on this. Pat mentioned: On 8/6/07 9:16 AM, pat eyler wrote: > I've tried to work out an 'advance directive' statement that would > allow project owners/admins to protect against this (and tried > to engage some serious legal folks), but have been unable > to come up with anything satisfactory. :( Is it worth setting this up for the new Libxml2 just in case? Thanks, Keith From transfire at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 11:29:17 2007 From: transfire at gmail.com (TRANS) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:29:17 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <46BC7A7A.803@oreilly.com> References: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> <46BC7A7A.803@oreilly.com> Message-ID: <4b6f054f0708100829l6da35f88pdf78b1b7ce8acd01@mail.gmail.com> On 8/10/07, Keith Fahlgren wrote: > On 8/10/07 7:25 AM, TRANS wrote: > > To bring everyone up to speed, I'm acting project Admin and Pat Eyler > > has volunteered to be "backup" Admin. Charlie Savage and Ross Bamford > > are signed on as Senior Developers. > > > Great, I appreciate your work on this. Pat mentioned: > > On 8/6/07 9:16 AM, pat eyler wrote: > > I've tried to work out an 'advance directive' statement that would > > allow project owners/admins to protect against this (and tried > > to engage some serious legal folks), but have been unable > > to come up with anything satisfactory. :( > > Is it worth setting this up for the new Libxml2 just in case? Unless Tom Copeland and Rich Kilmer agree to make it site wide policy, I doubt it would matter -- am I understanding this right? I think the best thing we could right now is make sure we have 3 admins. That will pretty much ensure there's always at least one around to do whatever needs to be done. We have two already. One more, preferably someone who actively codes in C, and I think we'd be set. Hmm... C coders... Maybe someone can post to the ruby-core list and see if anyone else over there is interested? (I would myself, but I'm no longer subscribed to that list.) T. From transfire at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 11:31:16 2007 From: transfire at gmail.com (TRANS) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:31:16 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <2fff50390708100806g1b89b74r2eb1d7d2ef1900d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> <2fff50390708100806g1b89b74r2eb1d7d2ef1900d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4b6f054f0708100831o44642713i15729f35057e3bc3@mail.gmail.com> On 8/10/07, Daniel N wrote: > this is great. I'm really excited about this moving forward. Even though I > can't offer anything in the C department, I plan on giving it a cracking run > in ruby ;) Thats great. Better docs and tests are always helpful too. T. From danj at 3skel.com Fri Aug 10 11:17:02 2007 From: danj at 3skel.com (Dan Janowski) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:17:02 -0400 Subject: [Libxml2] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <924A65FE-8B05-4667-AFBE-FE9FC90E8AA9@3skel.com> My recommendations: 1. Leave all the old tags and branches 2. Definitely use separate branches/tags for libxml,libxslt and www 3. Bump all new branches to 0.5 and start development there (i.e. abandon the 0.4 devel branch, merging if needed). In my CVS projects I develop and release in branches and only use the head for merging. I am not as familiar with svn. Dan On Aug 10, 2007, at 10:25, TRANS wrote: > Hi-- > > First post to the new list. Glad to see so many people have made it > --some 32 subscribers by last count. > > To bring everyone up to speed, I'm acting project Admin and Pat Eyler > has volunteered to be "backup" Admin. Charlie Savage and Ross Bamford > are signed on as Senior Developers. If any one else has patches or has > C experience and would like to get involved with development, just > tell me, along with your Rubyforge username, and I'll sign you up. > > Tom Copeland did us a big favor and converted the old CVS repo to SVN. > Anyone can check it out here: > > svn checkout svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/libxml2 > svn checkout http://libxml2.rubyforge.org/svn/trunk/ > > for developers: > > svn checkout svn+ssh://developername at rubyforge.org/var/svn/libxml2 > > The first thing I think we should do, now that we have the repo, is to > clean it up a bit. I was thinking that perhaps the libxml, libxslt and > the www directories should all have their own branches/tags/trunk. Is > that a good idea? Or is it better just to leave as one? We certainly > need to clean up the arrangement, whatever we do. The repo currently > looks like this: > > branches/ > DEV_0_4/ > libxml/ > MAINT_0_3_8/ > libxml/ > libxslt/ > libxslt/ > tags/ > REL_0_3_6/ > libxml/ > libxslt/ > REL_0_3_8/ > libxml/ > REL_0_3_8_2/ > libxml/ > REL_0_3_8_4/ > libxml/ > Root_DEV_0_4/ > libxml/ > Root_MAINT_0_3_8/ > libxml/ > init/ > libxslt/ > trunk/ > CVSROOT/ > libxml/ > libxslt/ > www/ > > I'd like to get rid of anything we don't need and get consistent > naming across the board. Suggestions? (Ross maybe you can advise > here). > > Thanks and Welcome! > T. > _______________________________________________ > Libxml2-discuss mailing list > Libxml2-discuss at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml2-discuss From rosco at roscopeco.co.uk Sat Aug 11 03:48:43 2007 From: rosco at roscopeco.co.uk (Ross Bamford) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:48:43 +0100 Subject: [Libxml2] bugs Message-ID: There are quite a few bugs on the old tracker: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?atid=1971&group_id=494&func=browse These bugs are the main thing holding back from a 0.4 (or 0.5, whatever) release. I think we should work through them, see which can be replicated, and file them into the new tracker. Then, we fix 'em :) I'm probably going to be able to do a few over this weekend, but I doubt I'll have time to do them all. Anyone else fancy a bit of bug replication? -- Ross Bamford - rosco at roscopeco.co.uk From rosco at roscopeco.co.uk Sat Aug 11 04:55:39 2007 From: rosco at roscopeco.co.uk (Ross Bamford) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:55:39 +0100 Subject: [Libxml2] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: (I sent this earlier, but it doesn't appear to have made the list. Apologies if this turns up as a dupe). On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:25:39 +0100, TRANS wrote: > First post to the new list. Glad to see so many people have made it > --some 32 subscribers by last count. > Cool. > The first thing I think we should do, now that we have the repo, is to > clean it up a bit. I was thinking that perhaps the libxml, libxslt and > the www directories should all have their own branches/tags/trunk. Is > that a good idea? Or is it better just to leave as one? Hmm, I'm not sure on that one. It would work, and might be cleaner, but it might also make it more difficult to get libxslt-ruby compiled from SVN, since it has a compile-time dependency on the libxml-ruby code, and expects it to be at ../libxml. So it'd add an extra step at checkout, but on the flipside it would make it easier for people to get the right libxslt for the libxml from a specific release tag. If we're gonna do this, we should do it soon though, since (I think?) it'll mean everyone with a checked-out copy checking out again. > We certainly > need to clean up the arrangement, whatever we do. The repo currently > looks like this: > > [...elided...] > > I'd like to get rid of anything we don't need and get consistent > naming across the board. Suggestions? (Ross maybe you can advise > here). > Well, I think the CVSROOT can go for a start. Also, DEV_0_4 is already merged down to trunk, so that can go as well - along with it's root tag. I've not done much branching/merging with SVN, but I assume we still need the root tag for the MAINT_0_3_8 branch? The 'libxslt' branch can also go, I'm not sure where it came from actually, and the same goes for the 'init' tag. I'd suggest we then go forward, tagging releases as previously, but including 'libxslt' in the tag too, to make it easier to get a compatible codebase for both libraries from a tag. Branching can be done on major releases, and as needed, to allow maintenance on the old version (in the branch) and work on the new version (in trunk) and backporting of fixes etc. How's that sound? Cheers, -- Ross Bamford - rosco at roscopeco.co.uk From rosco at roscopeco.co.uk Sat Aug 11 03:33:46 2007 From: rosco at roscopeco.co.uk (Ross Bamford) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:33:46 +0100 Subject: [Libxml2] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:25:39 +0100, TRANS wrote: > First post to the new list. Glad to see so many people have made it > --some 32 subscribers by last count. > Cool. > > The first thing I think we should do, now that we have the repo, is to > clean it up a bit. I was thinking that perhaps the libxml, libxslt and > the www directories should all have their own branches/tags/trunk. Is > that a good idea? Or is it better just to leave as one? Hmm, I'm not sure on that one. It would work, and might be cleaner, but it might also make it more difficult to get libxslt-ruby compiled from SVN, since it has a compile-time dependency on the libxml-ruby code, and expects it to be at ../libxml. So it'd add an extra step at checkout, but on the flipside it would make it easier for people to get the right libxslt for the libxml from a specific release tag. If we're gonna do this, we should do it soon though, since (I think?) it'll mean everyone with a checked-out copy checking out again. > We certainly > need to clean up the arrangement, whatever we do. The repo currently > looks like this: > > [..elided..] > > I'd like to get rid of anything we don't need and get consistent > naming across the board. Suggestions? (Ross maybe you can advise > here). > Well, I think the CVSROOT can go for a start. Also, DEV_0_4 is already merged down to trunk, so that can go as well - along with it's root tag. I've not done much branching/merging with SVN, but I assume we still need the root tag for the MAINT_0_3_8 branch? The 'libxslt' branch can also go, I'm not sure where it came from actually, and the same goes for the 'init' tag. I'd suggest we then go forward, tagging releases as previously, but including 'libxslt' in the tag too, to make it easier to get a compatible codebase for both libraries from a tag. Branching can be done on major releases, and as needed, to allow maintenance on the old version (in the branch) and work on the new version (in trunk) and backporting of fixes etc. How's that sound? Cheers, -- Ross Bamford - rosco at roscopeco.co.uk From transfire at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 09:40:00 2007 From: transfire at gmail.com (TRANS) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 06:40:00 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] Getting Started In-Reply-To: References: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4b6f054f0708120640x62842d16ie03217dca3185edd@mail.gmail.com> On 8/11/07, Ross Bamford wrote: > (I sent this earlier, but it doesn't appear to have made the list. > Apologies if this turns up as a dupe). > > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:25:39 +0100, TRANS wrote: > > > First post to the new list. Glad to see so many people have made it > > --some 32 subscribers by last count. > > > > Cool. > > > The first thing I think we should do, now that we have the repo, is to > > clean it up a bit. I was thinking that perhaps the libxml, libxslt and > > the www directories should all have their own branches/tags/trunk. Is > > that a good idea? Or is it better just to leave as one? > > Hmm, I'm not sure on that one. It would work, and might be cleaner, but it > might also make it more difficult to get libxslt-ruby compiled from SVN, > since it has a compile-time dependency on the libxml-ruby code, and > expects it to be at ../libxml. So it'd add an extra step at checkout, What's the extra step? > on the flipside it would make it easier for people to get the right > libxslt for the libxml from a specific release tag. It would? Now that you mention it, seems like it would do the opposite. > Well, I think the CVSROOT can go for a start. Also, DEV_0_4 is already > merged down to trunk, so that can go as well - along with it's root tag. > I've not done much branching/merging with SVN, but I assume we still need > the root tag for the MAINT_0_3_8 branch? The 'libxslt' branch can also go, > I'm not sure where it came from actually, and the same goes for the 'init' > tag. Okay. Unless there are objections I'll go ahead and remove these. > I'd suggest we then go forward, tagging releases as previously, but > including 'libxslt' in the tag too, to make it easier to get a compatible > codebase for both libraries from a tag. Branching can be done on major > releases, and as needed, to allow maintenance on the old version (in the > branch) and work on the new version (in trunk) and backporting of fixes > etc. > > How's that sound? Good. T. From rosco at roscopeco.co.uk Sun Aug 12 12:28:35 2007 From: rosco at roscopeco.co.uk (Ross Bamford) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:28:35 +0100 Subject: [Libxml2] Getting Started In-Reply-To: <4b6f054f0708120640x62842d16ie03217dca3185edd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708100725x347dc24fie3bfb1a4c0e83e30@mail.gmail.com> <4b6f054f0708120640x62842d16ie03217dca3185edd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:40:00 +0100, TRANS wrote: > On 8/11/07, Ross Bamford wrote: >> > The first thing I think we should do, now that we have the repo, is to >> > clean it up a bit. I was thinking that perhaps the libxml, libxslt and >> > the www directories should all have their own branches/tags/trunk. Is >> > that a good idea? Or is it better just to leave as one? >> >> Hmm, I'm not sure on that one. It would work, and might be cleaner, but >> it >> might also make it more difficult to get libxslt-ruby compiled from SVN, >> since it has a compile-time dependency on the libxml-ruby code, and >> expects it to be at ../libxml. So it'd add an extra step at checkout, > > What's the extra step? > Checking out libxml/TRUNK and then libxslt/TRUNK, as opposed to just checking out trunk. >> on the flipside it would make it easier for people to get the right >> libxslt for the libxml from a specific release tag. > > It would? Now that you mention it, seems like it would do the opposite. > It might appear so, until you realise that libxslt doesn't get a release every time libxml does - really it's only when the ABI changes we need a new release. So currently, if you build libxml 0.3.8.4 (for example) from a tag, and the want the right code for libxslt to compile against it, you have to look back through the tags to find the last libxslt release (0.36 IIRC). Of course, all of this matters only in specific cases (building an old release, or building libxslt to be compatible with an old release) so it's probably not really something we should worry about. I'm just thinking out loud, I guess - the whole situation with libxslt-ruby needing libxml-ruby's headers is something I'd like to look into changing at some point. -- Ross Bamford - rosco at roscopeco.co.uk From charlie.caroff at gmail.com Tue Aug 14 02:54:15 2007 From: charlie.caroff at gmail.com (Charlie Caroff) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:54:15 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] help installing libxml-ruby on FreeBSD 6.2 Message-ID: Hi, I'm running freebsd 6.2 release, and I'm having trouble getting libxml-ruby installed. When I run gem install -r libxml-ruby I get this output Building native extensions. This could take a while... ERROR: While executing gem ... (Gem::Installer::ExtensionBuildError) ERROR: Failed to build gem native extension. ruby extconf.rb install -r libxml-ruby checking for socket() in -lsocket... no checking for gethostbyname() in -lnsl... no checking for atan() in -lm... no checking for atan() in -lm... yes checking for inflate() in -lz... yes checking for iconv_open() in -liconv... yes checking for xmlParseDoc() in -lxml2... yes checking for libxml/xmlversion.h... no checking for #include ... yes checking for xmlDocFormatDump() in -lxml2... yes checking for docbCreateFileParserCtxt()... yes creating extconf.h creating Makefile make "Makefile", line 126: warning: duplicate script for target "/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/libxml-ruby-0.3.8.4/lib/xml" ignored gcc -I. -I. -I/usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-freebsd6.2 -I. -I/usr/local/include/libxml2 -DRUBY_EXTCONF_H=\"extconf.h\" -fPIC -g -O2 -Wall -I. -I/usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-freebsd6.2 -I. -I/usr/local/include/libxml2 -c ruby_xml_xpath.c In file included from /usr/local/include/libxml2/libxml/parser.h:796, from libxml.h:19, from ruby_xml_xpath.c:5: /usr/local/include/libxml2/libxml/encoding.h:28:19: iconv.h: No such file or directory In file included from /usr/local/include/libxml2/libxml/parser.h:796, from libxml.h:19, from ruby_xml_xpath.c:5: /usr/local/include/libxml2/libxml/encoding.h:136: error: syntax error before "iconv_t" *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/libxml-ruby-0.3.8.4/ext/xml. Gem files will remain installed in /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/libxml- ruby-0.3.8.4 for inspection. Results logged to /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/libxml-ruby-0.3.8.4 /ext/xml/gem_make.out Any hints? Thanks, Charlie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/libxml2-discuss/attachments/20070813/6af6c2e1/attachment.html From transfire at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 17:59:23 2007 From: transfire at gmail.com (TRANS) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:59:23 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] help installing libxml-ruby on FreeBSD 6.2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4b6f054f0708151459s7c9e0901la3aea39d3c996d14@mail.gmail.com> On 8/13/07, Charlie Caroff wrote: > Any hints? Not sure. But it looks like it can't find iconv.h? Although the check seems to. I assume the syntax error is just subsequent. We're in a transition at the moment to a new fork of this project, so bare with us. Something else you might try is, instead of using the gem, try installing development version 0.4.0 from source. T. From charlie.caroff at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 13:13:44 2007 From: charlie.caroff at gmail.com (Charlie Caroff) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:13:44 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] help installing libxml-ruby on FreeBSD 6.2 In-Reply-To: <4b6f054f0708151459s7c9e0901la3aea39d3c996d14@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708151459s7c9e0901la3aea39d3c996d14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you. I'm including the following, in case someone has any ideas for me, or in case it helps with your development efforts. I'm not a C programmer, so I don't know how much I'm going to mess around with this. 1. upgraded libxml2 to the latest version 2. downloaded the development version of libxml-ruby 0.4.0 from source 3. ran "rake install" 4. changed directory to ext/xml 5. ran ruby extconf.rb --with-iconv-dir=/usr/local/bin/ --with-iconv-lib=/usr/local/lib/ --with-iconv-include=/usr/include/sys/ 6. changed CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc40, which I'd installed from FreeBSD ports 7. ran "make install" Here are the errors: /usr/local/bin/gcc40 -I. -I. -I/usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-freebsd6.2 -I. -I/usr/local/include/libxml2 -DRUBY_EXTCONF_H=\"extconf.h\" -I/usr/include/sys/ -I/usr/local/bin//include -fPIC -g -O2 -I. -I/usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-freebsd6.2 -I. -I/usr/local/include/libxml2 -c ruby_xml_xpath.c In file included from /usr/local/include/libxml2/libxml/parser.h:796, from libxml.h:19, from ruby_xml_xpath.c:5: /usr/local/include/libxml2/libxml/encoding.h:136: error: syntax error before 'iconv_t' /usr/local/include/libxml2/libxml/encoding.h:136: warning: no semicolon at end of struct or union /usr/local/include/libxml2/libxml/encoding.h:137: warning: data definition has no type or storage class *** Error code 1 Charlie On 8/15/07, TRANS wrote: > > On 8/13/07, Charlie Caroff wrote: > > > Any hints? > > Not sure. But it looks like it can't find iconv.h? Although the check > seems to. I assume the syntax error is just subsequent. > > We're in a transition at the moment to a new fork of this project, so > bare with us. > > Something else you might try is, instead of using the gem, try > installing development version 0.4.0 from source. > > T. > _______________________________________________ > Libxml2-discuss mailing list > Libxml2-discuss at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml2-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/libxml2-discuss/attachments/20070816/3bdd091a/attachment.html From transfire at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 13:33:53 2007 From: transfire at gmail.com (TRANS) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:33:53 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] libxml vs. libxml2 Message-ID: <4b6f054f0708171033m4bf5eb5dw6b711fb07eb2ae74@mail.gmail.com> Crazy, crazy. Sean appeared out the blue aether yesterday, and gave me admin rights to the original libxml project. So I suppose the fork isn't necessary after all. But I'll put it to the community just the same to be sure. Should we stick to the old project or go forward with the fork? T. P.S. If we do stick with the original, I will still have the repository converted to SVN and do some clean up. From cjbottaro at alumni.cs.utexas.edu Fri Aug 17 14:19:55 2007 From: cjbottaro at alumni.cs.utexas.edu (Christopher J. Bottaro) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:19:55 -0500 Subject: [Libxml2] libxml vs. libxml2 In-Reply-To: <4b6f054f0708171033m4bf5eb5dw6b711fb07eb2ae74@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708171033m4bf5eb5dw6b711fb07eb2ae74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't care, either way... as long a some gem is made official and I don't have to worry about it. I dunno, maybe continue with the orig project since already when you search for libxml on rubyforge, two projects come up (libxml and libxml2) and I think that might confuse people. My company is considering moving our app to Rails and that decision it's very dependent on the performance and reliability of this project. :) Thanks for continuing on with this project. -- Christopher On 8/17/07, TRANS wrote: > Crazy, crazy. Sean appeared out the blue aether yesterday, and gave me > admin rights to the original libxml project. So I suppose the fork > isn't necessary after all. But I'll put it to the community just the > same to be sure. Should we stick to the old project or go forward with > the fork? > > T. > > > P.S. If we do stick with the original, I will still have the > repository converted to SVN and do some clean up. > _______________________________________________ > Libxml2-discuss mailing list > Libxml2-discuss at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml2-discuss > From has.sox at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 00:03:34 2007 From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:03:34 +1000 Subject: [Libxml2] libxml vs. libxml2 In-Reply-To: References: <4b6f054f0708171033m4bf5eb5dw6b711fb07eb2ae74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fff50390708182103h31b45868qbb5c9c354343a684@mail.gmail.com> On 8/18/07, Christopher J. Bottaro wrote: > > I don't care, either way... as long a some gem is made official and I > don't have to worry about it. I dunno, maybe continue with the orig > project since already when you search for libxml on rubyforge, two > projects come up (libxml and libxml2) and I think that might confuse > people. > > My company is considering moving our app to Rails and that decision > it's very dependent on the performance and reliability of this > project. :) > > Thanks for continuing on with this project. > > -- Christopher > > On 8/17/07, TRANS wrote: > > Crazy, crazy. Sean appeared out the blue aether yesterday, and gave me > > admin rights to the original libxml project. So I suppose the fork > > isn't necessary after all. But I'll put it to the community just the > > same to be sure. Should we stick to the old project or go forward with > > the fork? > > > > T. > > > > > > P.S. If we do stick with the original, I will still have the > > repository converted to SVN and do some clean up. I think sticking to the original would be good. There are quite a few links out there pointing to the original project. It would be easier. Just my 0.02 Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/libxml2-discuss/attachments/20070819/1325d9b2/attachment.html From transfire at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 00:09:37 2007 From: transfire at gmail.com (TRANS) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:09:37 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] libxml vs. libxml2 In-Reply-To: <2fff50390708182103h31b45868qbb5c9c354343a684@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708171033m4bf5eb5dw6b711fb07eb2ae74@mail.gmail.com> <2fff50390708182103h31b45868qbb5c9c354343a684@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4b6f054f0708182109n30210398ob378aa8a5338f595@mail.gmail.com> On 8/18/07, Daniel N wrote: > > > On 8/18/07, Christopher J. Bottaro wrote: > > I don't care, either way... as long a some gem is made official and I > > don't have to worry about it. I dunno, maybe continue with the orig > > project since already when you search for libxml on rubyforge, two > > projects come up (libxml and libxml2) and I think that might confuse > > people. > > > > My company is considering moving our app to Rails and that decision > > it's very dependent on the performance and reliability of this > > project. :) > > > > Thanks for continuing on with this project. > > > > -- Christopher > > > > On 8/17/07, TRANS wrote: > > > Crazy, crazy. Sean appeared out the blue aether yesterday, and gave me > > > admin rights to the original libxml project. So I suppose the fork > > > isn't necessary after all. But I'll put it to the community just the > > > same to be sure. Should we stick to the old project or go forward with > > > the fork? > > > > > > T. > > > > > > > > > P.S. If we do stick with the original, I will still have the > > > repository converted to SVN and do some clean up. > > > I think sticking to the original would be good. There are quite a few links > out there pointing to the original project. It would be easier. Nice point. Okay. I will make the arrangements. T. From iamharshal at rediffmail.com Mon Aug 20 04:07:08 2007 From: iamharshal at rediffmail.com (Harshal Ganpatrao Hayatnagarkar) Date: 20 Aug 2007 08:07:08 -0000 Subject: [Libxml2] libxml versus libxml2 Message-ID: <20070820080708.4228.qmail@webmail50.rediffmail.com> Hi, My call is to use 'libxml' project. Using 'libxml2' might unnecessarily force to move to different gem 'libxml2'. If it can not be avoided, then by all means move to 'libxml2', otherwise let's continue with 'libxml'. Thanks. With regards, Harshal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/libxml2-discuss/attachments/20070820/330d4eaf/attachment.html From cfis at savagexi.com Tue Aug 21 11:12:52 2007 From: cfis at savagexi.com (Charlie Savage) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:12:52 -0600 Subject: [Libxml2] libxml vs. libxml2 In-Reply-To: <2fff50390708182103h31b45868qbb5c9c354343a684@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b6f054f0708171033m4bf5eb5dw6b711fb07eb2ae74@mail.gmail.com> <2fff50390708182103h31b45868qbb5c9c354343a684@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46CB00F4.1020208@savagexi.com> > On 8/18/07, *Christopher J. Bottaro* > wrote: > > I don't care, either way... as long a some gem is made official and I > don't have to worry about it. I dunno, maybe continue with the orig > project since already when you search for libxml on rubyforge, two > projects come up (libxml and libxml2) and I think that might confuse > people. > > My company is considering moving our app to Rails and that decision > it's very dependent on the performance and reliability of this > project. :) > > Thanks for continuing on with this project. > > -- Christopher > > On 8/17/07, TRANS > > wrote: > > Crazy, crazy. Sean appeared out the blue aether yesterday, and > gave me > > admin rights to the original libxml project. So I suppose the fork > > isn't necessary after all. But I'll put it to the community just the > > same to be sure. Should we stick to the old project or go forward > with > > the fork? > > > > T. > > > > > > P.S. If we do stick with the original, I will still have the > > repository converted to SVN and do some clean up. > > > > I think sticking to the original would be good. There are quite a few > links out there pointing to the original project. It would be easier. I'd agree. Charlie -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3237 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/libxml2-discuss/attachments/20070821/df477312/attachment.bin From cjbottaro at alumni.cs.utexas.edu Wed Aug 22 13:11:59 2007 From: cjbottaro at alumni.cs.utexas.edu (Christopher J. Bottaro) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:11:59 -0500 Subject: [Libxml2] state of libxsl Message-ID: Hey, How's libxsl doing? Is it a part of this project and a part of the "revival" ? Thanks for the info, -- Christopher From transfire at gmail.com Wed Aug 22 14:11:33 2007 From: transfire at gmail.com (TRANS) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:11:33 -0700 Subject: [Libxml2] state of libxsl In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4b6f054f0708221111g1f24a899te0df72735f9f2a27@mail.gmail.com> On 8/22/07, Christopher J. Bottaro wrote: > Hey, > How's libxsl doing? Is it a part of this project and a part of the "revival" ? Yes. But currently its a little on the back burner until we get some issues resolved with libxml itself. BTW, turns out we are not going to need to fork the original project. So this mailing list will be shutdown in favor of the original --sorry for the inconvenience. T.